AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume I, Issue 78, 17 April 1877, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Fbiday, April 13, 1877. (Before Justin Aylmer, Esq., R.M.) OBTAINING GOODS UNDER FALSE • PRETENCES. Elizabeth Bryant, alias O'Brien was brought up on remand, charged with obtaining goods under false pretences. Elizabeth Malinanche, examined by prisoner.—l was with you on a Saturday night at Clarke and Son's, drapers. I saw you pay for all the goods you purchased that night. Mr. Kinglilee asked me if I had a flower garden, but I do not remember his making a remark about butter. I did not hear you say that your husband was a labourer, nor that you intended returning to Little Akaloa on Monday or Tuesday. Thomajs Kinglilee, re-examined. — The butter, eggs, and honey purchased from prisoner have not been delivered at Christchurch. After the 10th March I did not meet prisoner again till I saw her in the Court-house on the 11th of April. The groceries were landed on the jetty, addressed to prisoner, but neither her nor her husband made application for possession of them. The Bench committed prisoner to take her trial at the ensuing sittings of

the Supreme Court to be held in Christ- j church. Sergeant Ramsay brought under the notice of the Court a hardship' which the witness Elizabeth Malmanche had been subjected to in being subpoenaed by prisoner from Pigeon Bay, she having to walk to the Head of the Bay and incur expenses which there was no chance of being paid her by prisoner. He asked the Court whether there was any way witness could be recouped her loss - , and remarked that it was indeed a pity that she had come at al\ His Worship admitted that the case was a hard one, but he knew of no way to provide for it. The evidence was not of the slightest help to prisoner. SUNCKELL V. ANNING. This was an action to recover possession of a gun, or its value, alleged to have been purchased with partnership monies, and claimed by plaintiff as his property by virtue of a deed of dissolution. Judgment in this case was reerved. from a previous Court. His Worship, in giving judgment, remarked, that in consequence of the evidence being of so conflicting a character, it was very difficult to arrive at a judgment in the matter,. It appeared that Aiming had held possession of the gun long after the dissolution of partnership, without any application being made by defendant for its restoration, and therefore the gun had better remain where it was. Judgment .would be for defendant, with costs. Plaintiff gave notice of appeal. AKAROA AND AVAINUI ROAD BOARD V. GEORGE ARMSTRONG. To recover the sum of £18 11s. 3d., being amount claimed on assessment of defendant's property, at t)d. in the £1. Mr. Nalder appeared for defendant. Thomas Adams, clerk to the Board, produced the rate-book and assessment roll. He stated that the claim was presented by the collector to defendant, but had not been paid, and that the accounts produced were handed by him to Mr. Hartley, the collector, to be delivered to defendant. Mr. Nalder said that Mr Armstrong's main objection for not paying the rate was on account of, his land not having been surveyed, and from all appearances, he feared that it never would be. He knew of a case of very great hardship, which had been brought under his notice last week. Two Danish settlers, named H. Zorgenten and Christian Frederickson, . residing at Le Bon's, leased in May, 1876, section 22,917, comprising 63 acres, for a term of five years. These two poor men, believing that they had been placed upon the right section, went on improving, and built two houses. After a recent surrey, it was discovered that instead of there being 63 acres, there were only 7£ ! and one of the houses had actually "been built upon land belonging to another person adjoining. He also knew of another case, where Mr J. F. Roberts took up 100-acres, and he (Mr. Naldea) had spent* a week in the Waste Lands Commissioner's office trying to find it out f without success. Mr. Roberts cannot even now 'get his money back, and it appears very doubtful whether there is even an acre of the section purchased in existence. There was no probability of the land for which his client had been sued for rates being surveyed for years to come. The ■ total assessment was £455, at 9d. in the £, making the sum due £17 Is. 3d. The amount of the claim sued for was £18 11s. 3d., showing an error of £1 10s. The latter amount his client was agreeable to pay, but he (Mr. Nalder) thought that Mr. Armstrong should not be called upon to pay costs. The Bench.—But why was not the amount you admit paid into Court ? Mr. Nalder explained that Mr. Armstrong could not ascertain the correct amount from the notices served upon him, and he Avas sure that there was no person more willing to pay money than Mr. Armstrong. The infliction of costs upon the Road Board was the only punishment he asked. Mr. Adams said that the amounts set forth in the assessment notices were cor ■ rect in each instance, but an error was evidently made in the collector's bill. The Bench gave judgment for the Board for £17 Is. 3d., without costs. The Court then adjourned.