♦ ASHBURTON— Tuesday, Jan. 13. (Before Mr. F. Guinness, R.M.) CHARGE OF OBTAINING MONEY UNDER FALSE FEETENCES. Blair v. Kelly.—Mr. Purnell for informant, Mr. Harris for defendant. Thisan information to the effect that obtained the sum of 10s. on with the intention of defrauding „.ie informant. Defendant pleaded " Not guilty.” Mr. Purnell explained the bearings of the case. The parties had entered into a partnership on equal terms in a cropping lease on a section at South Rakaia. It afterwards transpired that accused had negotiated a lien with M'Kerrow and Mann for L 247, equal to the whole value of the crop. Thos. Blair, sworn, said I am a laborer, living at South Rakaia. Have known prisoner about six months. In October last he made proposals to me to go into a cropping partnership on some land of Cannon’s. He said nothing at the time about having given a lien on it. "We entered into partnership on October 13th. I paid certain sums on account of ploughing and seed. I did not then know that accused had given a lien over the crop. On Oct. 13 we entered into partnership. I produce the agreement. As soon as it was signed I paid Kelly the sums of money mentioned in the information, viz., 10s. for tucker for a man, 15s. for half cost of preparing the lease of the land. I have never seen the lease, and do not know if one exists. I also paid him LI 18s. 6d. for wages. Kelly remarked that if it was found necessary to raise money on the crop, it would be soon enough to do so when it was wanted at harvest time. He said he would not raise money on a lien without informing me. In November I learnt that Kelly had given a lien over the crop. I heard so from Mr. Hardy, at Rakaia, and accused did not give me any information. Had I known of the lien I would not have advanced any money. When I spoke to Kelly about the lien, he offered me the horses as security for the money I had advanced. Cross-examined by Mr. Harris—l first met Kelly at Kyle. He was ploughing there. On Sept. 22nd we went together to Cannon’s land to put in the crop. At that time no partnership was contemplated. It was not arranged till Oct. 13th. When I first went on.to Cannon’s land I was working for Rickards on wages. The land was all ploughed and sowed on Oct. 13th. I knew at the tine we were working that the crop was for myself and Kelly. I asked him several times for an agreement, but he put me off till Oct. 13th I paid Rickards L2O for the use of his teams on Oct. 22nd. Kelly paid no portion of it. The ploughing, &c., cost L7O. T also paid Ll 7 for seed barley. Kelly supplied the oat seed. I have not paid any rent for the land. It is 7s. per acre. Kelly told me when we signed the agreement there was no encumbrance on the crop. The sums mentioned in the information were paid by me on account of the partnership, after Kelly told me there was no encumbrance on the crop. Mr. Mann sent word to me to come and see him, as he intended to sell the crop under the lien. I swear I did not know that Kelly had gone to Mr. Mann to raise money on the crop on Oct. Ist, nor did he tell me that Mann wanted a bill of sale over the horses. Kelly had five horses. When I spoke to him about the lien in November, he said he would let me have his horses to secure my share of the crop. I did not o see Kelly till about a week after I kiiew'about the lien. I have not paid any money since in connection with the partnership. Mr. M'Kerrow and Mr. Lampard proved the signatures to the lien and the advances made. Mr. Harris then addressed the Bench for the defence, pointing out that the informant was a consenting party throughout to obtaining the advances on the crop, and that these advances were made for the purpose of paying for farming implements and wages during harvest. The present action was brought because Blair, the informant, fancied the crop was not going to be a paying one, and he wanted the accused to give him two horses to clear out of the bargain, which was refused. He would call the accused. Mr. Parnell objected to accused giving evidence as no pecuniary penalty could be inflicted in the case. Accused was charged with a felony and could not be examined. His Worship said that although the case was being heard summarily, the evidence was being taken down with a view to adjudicating on the case if it should be found necessary to send the accused for trial. Mr. Harris argued that the Court had discretionary power to take the evidence of the prisoner, there being really only the evidence of the informant against him. His Worship said he could not take the evidence of the accused where there was no power to alter the punishment from compulsory committal to a Cue. Mr. Purnell said it would be quite illegal to put accused in the box, as the charge was an information for felony and not an ordinary complaint, such as a common assault. His Worship then decided he could not take the evidence. Mr. Harris asked the case to bo adjourned to allow him to call evidence for the defence. Mr. Purnell demanded that the defence should disclose the names of witnesses proposed to be called, and the nature of their evidence should be given. Mr. Harris said he intended to call George Rickards to prove that the informant was aware of the existence of the lien. The case was then adjourned till Monday, January 19th. ASSAULT. Little v. Parr—Mr. Branson for plaintiff. Defendant was charged with having, on the 13th December, assaulted the informant. He pleaded guilty. He was also charged with breaking a pane of glass and smashing up a door lock. He admitted the pane but denied tt e lock. Robert Little, sworn, said—l am proprietor of the Hindhope Hotel. Accused broke the window . because I locked him out, and he then kicked the door in, and jumped over the counter. The value of the lock was 10s. Gd. By prisoner—Did not give you any provocation. Your coat and cheque book were laying under your horse’s feet when you were leaving. Charles Hawkins, saddler, said lie was present at the Hindhope Hotel on the occasion referred to. Parr was on his horse, and Little made some remark about his coat, when Parr came back and took oil both his coats, and wanted to fight Little, who locked the dooi. Parr smashed the window in, and afterwards broke the door. For the defence accused called John Armstrong, who said he was with Parr that day, and, after having a glass or two -, and on leaving peaceably, Little inajßl/<)Tno mocking observations in reference to Parr’s coat, which aggravated him, and he being in drink went back in a temper. Had he been left alone he would have gone away quietly. By the Court—l heard Little ask Parr if his coat was paid for, and other observations as to his going through the Court. Parr was drunk. Didn’t know whether he and his mate were fighting that day. His Worship said prisoner had admitted two charges and the third was proved. He would be fined for the assault, 20s. and costs; for' the window, 20s. and 40s. costs ; for the lock, 20s. and 7s. Cd. costs ; and professional foe 21s. —total for his little row, L 7 6s. Cd.
CIVIL CASES. Journeaux v. Fairy.—Claim L9l7s. 4d. Judgment confessed. Williams v. Power.—No appearance for plaintiff Case dismissed. McFarlane v. Lake.—Mr. O’Reilly for plaintiff, Mr. Purnell for defendant. Claim LlG—being value of a horse left in defendant’s stable, which had been lost by neglect on defendant’s part. Mr. O’Reilly opened the case, which appeared to be a very mixed one. Mr. Purnell claimed a nonsuit. Mr. McFarlane deponed that he left a horse at Lake’s stables at Rakaia. He exchanged horses with Yictor Soland for that day. Saw Lake that morning, who told him he had just fed the horse. Went to Christchurch, and was away three days, when he returned Lake told him the horse had gone away towards Chertsey. Lake said he would give him another horse in place of the one lost, and promised to advertise the horse, but had not done so. Witness went on—l live 32 miles from Rakaia. Have seen Lake since, and he has told me ho had sent the boys to look for the horse. Told Soland to go to Lake, and he got a horse from him in exchange ; but it turned out the horse did not belong to Lake, and to settle matters I offered him L 5 out of my own pocket so as to have no row. This horse was returned to Lake, who sent for him. Soland then claimed the value of the horse from me, and I paid him LIG as the value of it. By Mr. Purnell—l put the horse in Lake’s yard about 11 p.m. The horse was in the yard next morning feeding. Told Lake to put him in the stable and keep him till my return. I was informed that the horse was at Compton’s stables in Ashburton. Soland went to Lake to make arrangements about taking another hoi'se in exchange. I spoke to Mcßae about the lost horse, but he said ho had never seen him. I have refrained from taking proceedings because Lake has always promised to either pay or give another horse in exchange. Yictor Soland deponed that Lake had given a mare in exchange for the one lost by him, which he afterwards sent for, and another was sent in exchange not worth 10s. Lake threatened to sue me unless I returned the mare, and I then got LIG for the lost horse from Mr. M'Farlane. For the defence Charles Lake the defendant said —I recollect M'Farlane coming to my place one day. I never saw his horse at all. My yard has a double gate on it, which is often open. Had plaintiff wished he could have stabled his horse at any time of the night. Plaintiff did not tell me to put the horse in the stable. Ido not put 'horses in the yard to keep them there.. When M'Farlane came back from Christchurch he asked where his horse was, and I said I did not know. I heard no more about the horse for a long time. M'Farlane offered me Lo to settle the case about a month ago. I refused to take anything. I saw Soland afterwards, and lent him a mare, and he offered L 4, and M'Farlane L 5, and to let the question of the lost horse lapse. M'Farlane .afterwards re fused to yay the L 5, and Soland left the mare at my place again. I never sent Soland up an "old screw.” M'Farlane never met me in the yard as he swore, with a tin or a bucket in his hand. I keep a diary in which every horse brought to my stable is entered. I offered compensation by sending the mare to Soland as I considered it better not to go to law. I valued, the mare at LIG 10s. James M'Eae—l know the horse lost by M'Farlane, and saw it in Compton’s yard. I sent word to Soland, and when he came down we could not find him. He was worth about Ll 6. Mr Purnell, for the defence, argued that plaintiff had been guilty of contributory negligence. Mr. O'Reilly contested that Lake, as bailee of the horse for the time being, wsa responsible for his safe keeping, and did not use every care to keep the horse safely. His Worship would take time to consider the authorities, and give his decision on Friday.
Permanent link to this item
MAGISTERIAL., Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 48, 15 January 1880
MAGISTERIAL. Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 48, 15 January 1880
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.