Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.


ASHBURTON. —Friday, June 11, 1880. (Before Mr. F. Guinness, R.M.) the interpleader case. Saunders Bros. v. lowe. —In giving judgment in this case, his Worship stated his decision would be on the weight of evidence taken. Mr. Samuel Saunders had said in his evidence that the drill was the properly of Saunders Bros., and there had been no evidence to contradict that statement. Judgment would be given for the amount which the drill had fetched at the sale. Mr. O’Reilly applied for costs, but Mr. Purnell objected, on the ground that had the bailiff who was in possession of the drill been more explicit when asked by the bailiff of the Court to whom the drill belonged, perhaps, the case might never have been before his Worship. Mr. O’Reilly replied that there was 110 necessity for the man in possession to state to whom the drill belonged ; the fact of him being in possession was quite sufficient to prohibit any one else from seizing. His Worship disallowed costs. CIVIL CV'SES. Passmore v. Johnson.—Claim L4O Is. 7s. Mr. Purnell for plaintiff; no appear-, ance of defendant. Judgment for amount and costs L 4 3s. Hewitt v. Bates and Baldwin.—Claim, L 37 10s. Mr. O’Reilly for defendant. Baldwin. Hewitt stated that he had expected Mr. Branson to appear for him, but he understood he was out of town. On this account he would apply for an adjournment. Mr. O’Reilly said if the adjournment was granted, he should apply for costs. Hewitt then stated that in case costs were granted, he should elect to go on with the case himself. On his Worship calling the case, Mr. O’Reilly said he would consent to an adjournment, as his client (Baldwin) was not present, but while addressing the Bench, Baldwin came into Court and the case was gone on with. After Hewitt had sworn to the account being correct, the amount being made up of money due for wages and cash lent, Mr. O’Reilly called on Baldwin, who stated that he had been a partner with Bates about a month before Hewitt was employed by them. During the month of June, Bates, who was drinking with others on the farm, had ordered him off the premises. During three months that ho had been in partnership with Bates he had received nothing whatever from the concern. Bates and Lacy, the latter being also a partner, took the proceeds of last year’s crop. Baldwin said his wife had washed and cooked for the whole of the persons on the farm, and had received no recompense whatever, and he had lost his property, the crop, and everything else. He had never engaged Hewitt, but believed Lacy had done so. Cross-examined by Hewitt, Baldwin admitted having taken some firewood and oats off the farm. Judgment was given for the defendant, Baldwin, with costs L 3 155., and against Bates, with immediate execution. Orr and Co. v. D. Maroney.—Claim, L2 15s. Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs, ss. Marlborough v. Passmore.—Claim, L 6. Mr. Ireland for plaintiff; Mr. Purnell for defendant. No appearance of plaintiff, and case struck out. Cookson v. Stewart.—Claim, LlO 10s. Mr. O’Reilly for plaintiff; Mr. Ireland for defendant. In reply to Mr. Ireland, it was stated that a summons had been made out for 11. Stewart, and it was served on the 19fch March. It had been,however, discovered that it should have been made out to W. Stewart, and his Worship stated that by his order the alteration had been made. Mr. Ireland made an objection that, the case was out of the jurisdiction of the Court, as the alterations and interlineations in the summons were not initialed by the person who took the affidavit. His Worship overruled the objection. Mr, Ireland said that to save time, all the items in the bill of particulars would be admitted, with the exception of those for shoeing and for a horsecloth. Edward Cookson, the plaintiff, stated that it was a rule when horses were left with him for a time, and during that period, they required shoeing, that he was authorized to get the animals shod, and in this case Mr. Stewart had told him to get it done. Witness stated that after the horse had been in his stables for some time, he was told to hand it over to Mr. Ireland (not j

the lawyer), as it was going to be put out to grass, and required a horse-cloth i o protect it irom the weather. He had not an old one by him, ahd he had obtained a - , new one . for it. He had rendered his account to Mr. Stewart, with the horsecloth charged for in it, and had since then seen Mr. Stewart, who made no objection, to the item, and it was not until the, defendant went to Dunedin that he wrote objecting to pay for the cloth. The horse-cloth was now in the possession of Stewart. By Mr. Ireland —I have not paid for the shoeing which was done while the horse was in my charge. I understand the blacksmith has rendered Stewart an account for shoeing done since Mr. Ireland took the horse away. I should be very much surprised indeed to hear that defendant had paid for the horsecover and the shoeing. . James Tait deponed to supplying the horsecloth to Mr. Cookson. He was a partner with Mr. Cookson in the saddlery business. ••• Sold the horse-cloth to plaintiff for LI 7s. Stewart has never paid me for it, nor have I charged it to him. By. Mr. O’Reilly— I am not a partner with Cookson in the livery stable business. Mr. Ireland argued that if judgment were given for the plaintiff, it was just possible that the blacksmith and saddler might sue ■ hts client for the amounts, as there was' nothing to show that Cookson was the proper person to receive the amount. His Worship stated that the-judgment in the present case might be brought up by Mr. Stewart in any subsequent action such as referred to by Mr. Ireland, in fact, that judgment would be a bar to any subsequent proceedings .against Stewart. Judgment would be given for plaintiff, with costs LI 19s. Mr. Ireland applied for permission to appeal, but his Worship refused. RAKAlA— Thursday, June 10. (Before Mr. F. Guinness, R.M.) THE BIRCH IN SCHOOL. William Hale, schoolmaster-at South Rakaia, pleaded not guilty to a charge of assaulting and beating Mary McCoy. Mary M‘Ooy, sworn, said—l am the daughter of Joseph tVlcGoy. On the 11th of May I was at school at Rakaia. -Defendant is master of that school. I was talking to one of the girls near me, when defendant came and beat me with a stick. He went away again. I smiled to one of the girls. Defendant came again and beat me' till the stick broke. Defendant made me go and stand in the middle of the floor. I asked to be allowed to go home, as I was not well. Defendant told me to go and sit in my place. By defendant—Did not turn up my nose at you. Did not laugh—only smiled. Know the difference between laughing and smiling. Did not hear you call to me to be quiet. Mursula McCoy, sworn, said —I am mother of the previous witness. On the 11th of May my daughter came home from school, complaining of illness. She did not complain to me that she had been beaten at school. Next morning a neighbor called to, enquire how -my child was ; I told her she was not able to go to school. The woman said she did not wonder at that after the beating she had received there the day before. I then examined my child and found her very much bruised all over the back and shoulders and further down the body. She was not better of her beating for three days. By defendant—l have punished children myself. I have never left marks on them. Defendant, sworn—l am a schoolmaster at Rakaia. Mary M‘ooy attended my school. She was at school on the 11th of May last. She "was talking in her place. I called to her three times" to leave off' talking, but she continued. I went to her and gave her two or three slight taps with a stick I had in my hand. I sat down again, and she recommenced talking. I then gave her four or five cuts a little harder than the first. I saw her muttering and laughing to the girl next her. I beat her again, but harder. She turned up her nose at me, as if in defiance of me. I then gave her three or four sharp cuts and told her to stand out. The girl is in the habit of talking in school. She does not attend very regularly. I punished her for turning up her nose at me. By Mrs. M‘Coy—Never had occasion to beat the child before. Did not break the stick over the child, it was cracked before. The stick wap a bluegum sappling ..out of the plantations. It was not so big as my little finger. This was all the evidence. In giving judgment his Worship said that he did not wish to interfere with the, schoolmasters in maintaining the discipline. of their schools. If children were disobedient they must be • punished. Ho had. been shown the child’s back, and certainly he must say that it was very much bruised. It had, however, not been shown that the girl had been cruelly punished. He would dismiss the case, at the same time cautioning the defendant against losing his temper when in the act of punishing. UNREGISTERED. A. Orr, for being the owner of an unregistered dog, was fined 20s. and costs. CATTLE ON THE LOOSE. P. Mailey was fined 5s and costs for one cow wandering at large. 1 W. Doherty was fined 10s. and costs for two head of cattle found wandering at large. J. Mann and Chas. Lake, for one horse each, wandering about the township, were fined ss. and costs. CIVIL CASES. W. H. Partridge v. G. Freeman. —Claim L 7. Judgment by default, and costs. W. Hartnell v. T. E. Fagan.—Claim L 22. Judgment by default, and costs. T. Mutter v. F. Simmonds. —Judgment for Ll 3 Bs., and costs. W. Hartnell v. H. Smithers.—Case adjourned to Ashburton, on the 18th inst. DRUNK. T. Wright, for being drunk and incapable, was fined ss.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 112, 12 June 1880

Word Count

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 112, 12 June 1880