RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT
Tuesday, June 8.
(Before Mr. F. Guinness, R.M.) A BOARDING-HOUSE INCIDENT.
William Mahoney, charged with assaulting Samuel Lucas, boarding-house keeper, was defended by Mr. Ireland, and pled not guilty. Samuel Lucas deponed that on the 30fch May, between eleven and twelve o’clock, he was in the kitchen of the Prince Albert Dining-rooms, wnen the accused came in and helped himself to coffee. I told him that I had sat up for him the night previous, and expected some money, and told him that I supposed he had spent his money, and that he had come back to “loaf.” I told him, also, that I had now proved him to be nothing short of a “loafer,” and that he would not get another meal in my house. He then said I did not dare say that to him outside. I said, “I don’t want any bother with you ; you had better go. ” He said it was more than I dared do—to turn him out on a Sunday. I put my hand on his shoulder, and told him to go. He then took hold of me by the hair of my head, and with the other held me by my beard. He pulled me down to the ground, and dragged me into the passage, just opposite the sitting-room door. My wife, in the meantime, tried to pull the accused off, but did not succeed. He afterwards let me go, and when ho did so brought out of my face some of the hair, which my wife picked up. He then went outside and challenged me to fight, when I told him if he did not take himself off I would give him in charge. He then ran upstairs, when I followed him. I found that he had not gone into his own room, but he had gone into room No. 12, and locked himself in. When he was running upstairs, he said he would go quietly, but aftciwards said I could not turn him out on Sunday, and he would defy me. I tried to get the door open but failed. I sent my boy for a stick, which I put in the opening of the door so that he could not close it again. He then opened the door and pulled the stick away. He came out with the stick and flourished it about. I told my boy to go for a policeman, and accused then kicked me in the leg. He got from No. 12 room to his own room, from which room the policeman took him. By Mr. Ireland—The conversation in the kitchen was about the money he" owed me. I did not say anything about an intimate friend of his. I commenced the conversation, by telling him he was a “ loafer,” and that he should get no more meals in my house. I was in the best of tempers at the time. I merely took him by the shoulder, and told him to go. When I went upstairs I did not strike
Mahoney with the stick. I do not know w) at accused was doing upstairs in room No. 12 ; his room is No. 13. I am not aware whether accused had any property in No. 12. I cannot swear that he had nothing there, but I do not think he had. He did not leave the house before the policeman came. When he went away, I let him have his goods, as they were not worth five shillings. He went out in the presence of the policeman, and went quietly. When ho kicked me, he said if he had a knife he would stab me. Elizabeth Compton corroborated the former part of the evidence of the previous witness, adding that the complainant had taken into the kitchen a handful of hair which had been torn out of bis own head. By Mr. Ireland—The complainant was helpless while the accused was dragging him by the hair. I did not see any blows on either side. I did not hear any conversation beyond Lucas telling Mahoney he was a “ loafer.” This concluded the evidence for the complainant, and Mr. Ireland contended that the boot was on the other leg, and that really Lucas was the man who should have been the accused in the case instead of being the complainant. His Worship said that the evidence, so far, went to show that an injustifiable assault had been committed. William Mahoney, the defendant, said he remembered the 30th May. I went into the kitchen of the Prince Albert, to help myself to coffee, and Mr. Lucas, who was there, spoke of an intimate friend of mine in an insulting way. I told him I did not wish to hoar anything about the man, and I told him that it was nothing but prejudice and spite that made him talk like that. He then made some very disagreeable references as to my spending my money at the races and at ball rooms. When he told me that 1 should not have another meal in his house, I told him I wished he had told me that three weeks ago. He then rushed at me and struck me, upon which I grasped him by the beard. Lucas went to a place in the kitchen where there were some knives, and took up one. When I went upstairs he followed me into the passage, and he made another rush at at me to strike me. While in the passage Mrs. Lucas came in, and while struggling with the plaintiff, she pulled me by the hair. Wo then separated, and 1 told him I did not wish to have anything to do with him, but wanted to go upstairs and get my things. I went upstairs,and hefollowcd me. At the top of the stairs he said if he could not give me a “lacing” with his hands ho would get something else to do it with. My own door was locked, and I went into the next room, in which there was a dictionary belonging to me. I locked the door, and Lucas burst it open with his foot. I went into the passage, and he struck me over the hand with a walking-stick, upon which I took the stick from him. I took the key out of the room in which I was, opened my own room door, and locked myself in, so as to get my things. Lucas went away, and then came back and asked his wife for a hammer and nails to fasten the window, so that I should not get out. He did not use the hammer and nails. Shortly afterwards the policeman came, and I told him that I wished to go quietly, and that if I had been allowed to go before, no disturbance would have occurred. I told Lucas that I should summons him, when he said he should summons me. I then left. Constable Smart, who arrested the accused, being a necessaiy witness, was absent, and his Worship adjourned the case until Thursday next. CIVIL CASES. C. F. Reed v. Steele. —Claim LIOO on a promissory note. Mr. Purnell for plaintiff. Judgmont by default for amount and costs L 5 IBs. Stephens v. Hammond. —Claim L3l 6s. Bd. Mr. Crisp for plaintiff. Judgment by default for amount and costs L 3. Hicks v. Bareira—Claim L 3 12s. Judgment by default for amount and costs 7s. Gd. INTERPLEADERS. Saunders Bros. v. George Jameson. — Mr.' O’Reilly for Saunders Bros., Mr. Purnell for Mr. Jameson. This was an action in which Saunders Bros, sought to recover a di'ill which, they asserted, had been sent to E. S. Lowe, of Kyle, the said drill having been distrained and sold by the bailiff of the R.M. Court, by the order of Mr. Jameson, trustee in the estate of Hudson, a bankrupt, who had obtained judgment for a debt owing by Lowe to the estate. For the plaintiffs Mr. O’Reilly called — Samuel Saunders, who deponed as follows—l am a member of the firm of Saunders Bros., which firm consists of Edward and Samuel Saunders. I am acquainted with Mr. Lowe, and also know a drill which has been taken by the bailiff of this Court from the property of Lowe. The drill belongs to Saunders Bros. It was lent to Lowe about the end of last August or the beginning of September, to enable him to get his. enp in. It is the drill sold by the bailiff which we claim. By Mr. Purnell—We purchased the drill from Mr. Booth, of Christchurch, for which we gave L 32. There was no agreement in writing between Lowe and ourselves with reference to the drill. We had a bailiff in possession of the drill, together with other goods over which we had a bill of sale. It was merely lent to Lowe for farming purposes. We were interested in his crop. Our bailiff went into possession about six weeks previous to the seizure by the bailiff of the Court, but the exact date I cannot state. I cannot say whether our bailiff was in possession before Jameson obtained judgment against Lowe. Our reason for putting a bailiff in was to protect [ourselves from distraint by execution creditors. We feared that Lowe was about to be sued. Our reason for not removing the drill was that Lowe might require it again. Drills are not required daring harvest time. We did not remove the drill because we considered it as safe there as in our possession, and Lowe might require it in a few weeks. Before the execution, I let Mr. Jameson know that we had a claim on some of the goods. It is very possible I told Jameson that the drill, although not in the bill of sale, was our property. I will not contradict Mr. Jameson if he asserts to the contrary. Mr. Lowe informed several .parties that the drill was ours, but there was nothing to show strangers that, it did not belong to Lowe. After the drill was seized, I told Jameson the drill was our property, and he suggested it would be necessary to prove the ownership in this Court. Our bailiff had an order from us to seize the drill, but I do not think it was stated in the order that it was our private property. I do not know of my own knowledge whether the bailiff took possession. Re-examined by Mr. O’Reilly—lt is rot the practice of busiuess men to set out muniments of title in an order. Edward Sidney Lowe, sworn—-I was the defendant in an action brought by Mr. Jameson, as trustee in Hudson’s estate. The drill claimed belonged to Saunders Bros., and ' was amongst other things seized by the bailiff. I borro wed the drill from Saunders Bros, about August, 1879. They were interested in my crop. A man on the farm took possession of the drill on behalf of Saunders Bros., and remained in possession of it until it was distrained by the bailiff of the R.M. Court. By Mr. Purnell—l cannot say who were the members of the firm of Saunders Bros, at that time. I never saw an advertisement in the papers announcing the retirement from the firm of Mr. William Saunders. At the time I borrowed the drill there was an arrangement for them to get me a drill, for which I was to pay L 32. I understood I was to pay for the ,dr ’I sent, but the firm did not debit me
with i\ It was taken away once by the firm, but was sent back again. When Saunders’ bailiff came clown, we expected an execution in. Mr. Crisp told me that he -was going to put in an execution on behalf of Dodson’s trustee. About a fortnight or three weeks elapsed between the bailiff taking possession and the R.M. bailiff distraining. I may have told Mr. Crisp about this time that if I were pressed for money, I should have to file. Either Mr. Crisp or Mr. Jameson gave me time to pay the claim of Dudson’s trustee. When Pearson, the R.M. bailiff, came down, both the bailiff in possession and myself told him that it was not my property, but belonged to Saunders Pros. We did not say it was under the bill of sale. By Mr. O’Reilly -I remember Mr, S. Saunders saying that the drill was not my property until I had paid for it. In an account which has been redered to me by the firm, the drill was not charged. By the Bench—lt is about a week since I got the account current from the firm. C. C. Hurrell produced the papers in Jameson v. Lowe. The judgment against Lowe was made on 25th November, 1879. By Mr. O’Reilly—l am Clerk of the District Court. Dudson filed in this district. The records of the bankruptcy are in my possession. I have them now in Court. Mr. O’Reilly wished the papers in Dudson’s bankruptcy to be produced, but this the Court would not allow. Mr. O’Reilly then asked the witness if he knew that Jameson was only one of two trustees in the estate, but the Bench refused to allow the question to be answered. Several questions being asked by Mr. O’Reilly, Mr. Purnell contended that no cross examination of a witness could take place who was only called for the production of documents, a view in which the Bench coincided. Alfred Pearson deponed to executing a warrant in Dudscn’s estate. Mr. O’Reilly objected to the warrant being put in, because the judgment had not been proved, and read from Roscoe’a Nisi Prius, a caso where this was laid down. His Worship allowed the warrant to go in. Alfred Pearson continued —In pursuance of that warrant I entered on the premises of Lowe, and seized, amongst other things, a drill, which was lying at the end of the stable. There were no distinguishing marks on it. I understood Saunders Bros, had a bill over some of •the things, and saw the bill of sale, and consequently I seized it. Nothing was said to mo by Saunders ' Bros, concerning the drill. When I seized the articles, I told Lowe that I must seize either the drill or the dray ; the latter was not included in the bill of sale. He asked me not to seize the dray, as he was using it, and told me the drill belonged to a neighbor. I seized the drill and two colts. This was done about the 14th or 15th May. I got notice that they claimed a day or two afterwards. Mr. Saunders told me that he had Lowe’s brother there in possession, as bailiff under the bill of sale. The bailiff did not claim the drill as Saunders’. I did not get written notice until the day of sale—lßth May. This was about an hour before the. sale, by Mr. O’Reilly. He told me to go on with the sale. After all expenses and charges were paid Ll 9 12s. 3d. was the amount realised. The 3rd of June was the day on which the summons was served. By Mr. O’Reilly—l do not remember you saying that there was no time to enter into sureties. I don’t remember any reasons being given by you why the sale should be gone on with. Nothing was said about paying the money over to Mr. Jameson. I heard that you were looking for me the day previous. I was absent in the country, and when I came back the notice was served upon me—about eleven o’clock. Prior to this I did not know that Saunders Bros, claimed the drill. Mr. O’Reilly then claimed judgment for the plaintiff. (1) Because it, had not been proved that Mr. Jameson, who sued as trustee of Dudson, was trustee ; and (2) that the judgment had not been proved. The plaint book was the only evidence of the judgment admitted, and the decision of Judge Johnston on this point must be within his Worship’s recollection. His Worship reserved his decision oh these points. Mr. O’Reilly then addressed the Court for the claimant, and his Worship reserved his decision till Thursday at 11 a.m. Reed v. Mcßae.—Mr. Purnell for plaintiff; Mr. Crisp, instructed by Mr. Ireland, for defendant, Chas. Francis Reed deponed—l remember purchasing two reapers and hinders for LllO from Ben. Bates. The Westerfield property had just previously been sold by my mother. I asked Mr. Hawdon, the purchaser, if he would allow mo to stow the machines in the woolshed, and he gave mo permission so to do. Mr. Hawdon carted portions of the machines to the woolshed. The portions which were not carried to the shed were seized by M'Rae’s bailiff. Wo had information given us that the things were seized. They are still my property. By Mr. Crisp—lt was in Christchurch I purchased the machine, at the Zetland Arms. Did not know that Bates bassoon to leave the Colony. Bates was perfectly sober at the time”. No money passed during the transaction. The machines wei’e taken in consideration as rent for land. It was purely for rent that the machines were taken. I will not contradict a witness if he swears that the machines were taken as payment for anything else. This was rent for the ground, for about the term of twelve months. lam a son of the late Mr. Charles Reed. I had had a verbal authority from my mother to receive the rent from Bates, and have a general authority from my mother [produced] to act in all matters of business for her. I have told a man named Hewitt to distrain for rent. I told Hewitt to go to Bates’ farm and seize the oats. I was up there a day or two after, and saw the man Hewitt in possession. This would be about the 7th or Bth May. The two reapers and binders were in the list of goods which the bailiff had to seize, and I told him to strike those out as they belonged to me. I will not swear that I told Hewitt that the machines were taken as payment for Bates’ mutton bill. I valued the machines at LllO. The property of Westerfield was sold to Mr. Hawdon, but the reapers and binders were not sold to him. A deal of plant on the ground was sold to Mr. Hawdon. I do not know where the machines in question were on the day of the sale. They were not included in any bill of sale. John Davison, sworn, said he saw the bailiff the night after the seizure, and told him that the machines were Mr. Reed’s property, and warned him not to take them. I told him we held a receipt, and he was not to move the machines. The bailiff still persisted in taking them, saying his instructions were to seize the machines, and he should do so. Judgment was given for Mr. Reed, and the machinery ordered to be delivered to him. Costs were also allowed.
Permanent link to this item
Ashburton Guardian, Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 111, 10 June 1880
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 111, 10 June 1880
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.