RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.
ASHBURTON, before Mr. Fn ini; Guinness R.M. Thursday, October 16, 1879. DRUNK. John Brady, charged with being drunk and disorderly. John had been fined 10s in June, and had been repeatedly before the (Joint. He was lined 20s. or go to prison for 48 hours.
Jeremiah Sullivan, “ guilty, sur ” of being drunk with John Brad} - was fined 10s. PENSIONER AtACC A RTHY. Kavanagh Maccarthy, the old fellow who appeared some days before the Court for drunkenness, was had up for vagrancy. He had spent all his recently drawn pension, and had gravitated, as was expected, to the Resident Magistrate’s Court. Maccarthy is very deaf and very near-sighted, and it was only with difficulty he was made to understand what was said to him. Ho denied being a vagrant, and addressed the Court very glibly. He was not a vagrant, but suffered severely from his head. He was not fit for anything, couldn’t see, couldn’t hear, and was not able to work. His Worship sentenced prisoner to three months’ imprisonment, and was told that it was “ the worst case that ever came before His Worship. ” THE HEN CASE.
James Moore, the individual who is accused of wholesale robbery of the Ashburton hen-roosts, appeared in answer to two charges of larceny of fowls to the amount of £3 and £1 2s. Cd. He pleaded guilty. Sergeant Pratt said a complaint that he had lost nine fowls was made to him on the 9th, by John Hefford, and on the following day witness went to Moore’s house in the Wnkanui Road. Prisoner was not there, but witness waited for him. When Moore came he was told of the accusation against him, and in reply to inquiries as to whore he got the fowls the heads of which were lying in the backyard, he said he had bought them, and the feathers were in a sheet and a bag in the house. Inside the house 22 fowls were found. Prisoner at last confessed to having stolen the fowls from two places —one near the new schoolmaster’s house, and the other Hefford's place. Prisoner wept when he made the confess on, and said he had no money, and that was why he had made the theft. John Hefford, carrier, said he had 14
fowls in his hen-coop on the 7th, and on the Bth nine of them were gone. He next saw some of his fowls on the folio ving Saturday at the police station. He valued the fowls stolen from him at 2s. Gd. each. His fowl house was enclosed in his backyard. Mr C. 15. M. Branson, Clerk of the Court, bought some fowls from the prisoner on several occasions, and gave 2s a pair for them. Sergeant Pratt again entered the box, and deposed to having been informed by Mrs Perham of the robbery of her fowl-house. Told prisoner he was also suspected of stealing that lady’s fowls. Eighteen of the twenty-two fowls found on prisoner’s premises were identified as Mrs Perham’s property. Mrs Perharn, Burnett-street, kept fowls on her premises. She had 44 fowls last Thursday in her fowl-house, •which was secured with a string at night. On Friday morning last 24 of them were missing. The 18 then in Court were her fowls. Valued the missing fowls at 5s a pair. His Worship said prisoner had been stealing fowls and selling them at a price far under market value, showing ho had a guilty knowledge of the larceny he had committed. These larcenies were becoming frequent, and must be put a stop to. The police had shown remarkable smartness in the case. Prisoner was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for the first offence ot theft from Ilefford’s, and six months for that from Mrs Perham’s—l2 months in all. cxvxi, CASES. Bull v. Spencer—Claim £2O. In this case defendant borrowed a horse and saddle from plaintiff. The horse had been lost by the defendant, and plaintiff’ had not been able to get it again. The defence was that .all due care had been used in securing the horse, which had broken its tethering to the waggon and got away. Judgment, after a lengthened hearing, w r as given for the plaintiff—£lo of the claim, £4 IGs damages, and the costs of the case and witnesses’ expenses.
Friday, October 17. A QUESTION UNDER THE STAMP ACT. Orr and Co. v. Patrick Murphy. Claim £2S 12s, on a dishonored promisory note. Mr Crisp for plaintiff, Mr Purnell for defendant. John Orr, sworn, stated the amount duo was on a dishonored bill produced. Mr Purnell took exception to the document, as six penny adhesive stamps had been used, and that, further, the stamps had not been obliterated by writing across them, but by a pencil mark. He quoted tile 57th section of the Stamp Act, which sets forth that the stamps at the time of affixing must be obliterated by the date and signature being written on them. Mr Crisp contended that as there was one shilling’s worth of stamps on the bill, the spirit and intention of the Act had been complied with. Mr Purnell referred to the case of Brogden v. Miller, where the Court of Appeal held it was necessary that stamps should be on all documents requiring them.
Mr Crisp argued that as the bank stamp was on the bill, they have become endorsers of it.
The Magistrate read the UGth section, and held that as sufficient stamps were attached, the Bill was admissible, but the parties who had attached the stamps, if wrongly done, were liable to penalties. It was sufficiently stamped, but the stamps were not properly cancelled. Mr Purnell applied to have a note note taken of his objections : (1). That the bill was not properly stamped ; and (2.) that the stamps were not properly cancelled. Mr Orr’s evidence was continued. The acceptance was lodged in the bank for collection. It was not paid. I sent notice of its being dishonored to Mr Markham at Chertsey. By Mr Purnell—The bill was due on 9th September. Got notice of its dishonor that day or next. Did not give notice to the defendant. Mr Hamilton, ■who drew the bill, is, I understand, bankrupt. Instructed Mr Crisp to write to de-
fendant on September 30 for payn e it. Don’t know that Hamilton became bankrupt since the date the bill became due. Had not taken proceedings against Markham and Co., the first endorsers. Hamilton was not a partner of Markham's.!
A. R. Markham said ho lived at Chertsey, and was trading under the name of A. R. Markham and Co. I gave Murphy a cheque for £25 as an obligation. The bill was drawn by Hamilton, and endorsed by Murphy, so as to facilitate the discount. As soon as Murphy endorsed it I gave him a cheque, and I gave it to Orr and Co. on account. In duo course I received notice of dishonor, and informed Murphy the same night I got the telegram from Oer and Co. That was within three days of the dishonor. Murphy remarked that he had the money, hut would not pay. Hamilton has become bankrupt since. Cross-examined by Mr Purnell ; There was never anyone in the firm but myself. I did not say, in a previous case, tiiat Hamilton was a partner.
Mr Purnell wished to obtain the history of the transaction, but Mr Crisp objected, as consideration was implied. Witness —Mr Murphy introduced Hamilton to me and stated that Hamilton had sheep in his paddock, and wanted to start as a butcher. Hamilton preferred the bill to Murphy, and asked if I could get it discounted for him. The bill was signed by Hamilton when given to Murphy. It was made payable to me to facilitate the discount.
I took 5 per coni., fin the transaction when I paid the cheque over. I don’t recollect that Murphy was asked for a receipt for the money due by him to Hamilton—l paid Hamilton's man half his wages for delivering goods for mo. I am debited with the amount by Orr and Co. in the their current account with me. Mr Purnell submitted that Orr and Co., having charged the bill against Markham, disposed of the case. Mr Orr, recalled—The account in my hands is a statement between our firm and Markham. We have debited Markham with the bill. It has not been paid. Mr Purnell argued that cheques bills were treated as cash.
His Worship considered Messrs Orr had done what they had a perfect right o do. They held a dishonored bill, and had a right to sue for it. Mr Purnell also took objection as the notice of dishonor had not been sufficient.
His Worship held that the notice was sufficient for the defence.
P. Murphy—Mr Markham called my attention one morning to the bill being dishonored. He told me one morning. I don’t knew how long it was after the bill was due. Hamilton owed me £3O. Markham said he would get a bill from Hamilton and cash it. I understood at the time that Markham and Hamilton were partners. Markham paid me for hire of a home for Hamilton. Markham’s name was over the butcher’s shop as agent for Hamilton. The bill was drawn on a Sunday. Markham drew the bill. I refused to pay the discount, and thought that when I signed the bill I was signing for the money I got. By Mr Crisp—lt is about a month ago since Markham told me. Didn’t know whether I would be sued. I told him that if 1 had to pay the bill I would sue Hamilton. I swear it was on a Sunday evening when the bill was drawn. I got £25 from Markham.
After counsel had addressed the Bench,
His Worship ruled that the stamping of the document was sufficient. Messrs Orr and Co. were the proper parties to sue, and as to the notice given, that he considered sufficient. As to whether there was fraud in the transaction lie could see none. The only question then left was whether the bill being drawn on a Sunday would vitiate it, and ho ruled that it did not. The plaintiff held the bill in the ordinary way of business, and the judgment would therefore bo for plaintiff with costs.
Mr Purnell asked for judgment to be stayed for seven days, to enable the defendant to take advice as to appeal. His Worship granted the application. PROTECTION ORDER.
Maria Seymour made application for the protection of her earnings. Mr C. W. Ireland appeared for applicant, who stated that she was the wife of 11. S. Seymour, and had been married to him eight years, and had seven children, two of whom wore by a former husband—the eldest of the five being seven years of age, During the time since their marriage her present husband had not sufficiently provided for her. Ho has worked most of the time as a carpenter, and had the means of providing for her. She had earned a little money herself, and had assistance from friends. Her husband was now employed as a seaman, and had been away from homo for about three months this time, and has not sent her anything. He mortgaged a section belonging to her, and it had been sold since. Her two eldest children are out at service.
His Worship made an order that the applicant should have the custody of the children, and that the husband should pay 30s per week towards their support.
Permanent link to this item
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume I, Issue 10, 18 October 1879
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume I, Issue 10, 18 October 1879
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.