RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT
ASH B URTON. -To-day. [Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R M.] Drunkenness. Two inebriates were each fined ss. Cattle Wandering. W. J. Hughes and M. Nealas A’ero each fined 5a for this offence under the by-laws. Larceny. —George Coulter was charged with stealing one kettle and a set of leading harness of the value of L'2, the property of one Aitken, and was remanded for 14 days at his own request, in order that he might obtain a witness from Kaiapoi. CIVIL CASES.
Martin v. Lowe, claim LI 11s 9d.—Mr Branson for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff with costs. Coulter v. McCutcheon, claim L 29. Mr Wilding for plaintiff, Mr Branson for defendant.—Mr Wilding stated the short iacts of the case as follows :—Some time back his client was charged, under very peculiar circumstances, with the larceny of a saddle. Owing to the absence of a material witness Coulter was c mvicted, and sentenced to a month’s imprisonment. At the time of his conviction he had a contract on hand and owned a dray, plough, saddle, and 3 horses and harness, When Coulter got into trouble he made an arrangement with McCutcheon to carry on the contract for him Before the saddle stealing case came on for hearing witness wrote out a receipt making over the goods to McCutcheon. That was to give him a title to the tilings, but no money passed. When Coulter came out of gaol he went to McCutche m to get his property back and was refused them by McCutcheon, who held possession of them. Hence the present action to recover the goods.— Coulter, the plaintiff, corroborated the statement of his counsel. He had drawn up a receipt for the goods which he made over to McCutcheon. Plaintiff held the receipt, and if the case against him had been dismissed, he was to have kept it himself. ft was for L 44. After the rase was over McCutcheon came up and asked for t lie receipt, which plaintiff handed over to him. Plaintiff was not indebted to McCutcheon in any way, but, on the contrary, McCutcheon was indebted to plaintiff. The witness was sharply cross-examined by Mr Branson. He denied that he had authorised Mr McCutcheon to finish his contract, making over to him, as security, the goods the cense of the action. The cross-examina-tion was a complete denial by the plaintiff of having justified the defendant in d..taininur the goods in question. The plaintiffs answers wore of a rather contradictory and unsatisfactory ch racter. — Re-examined by Mr Wilding : There was no partnership between plaintiff and defendant. They were at work for Mr Burgess on the same land that was all.—W. Smith, commission agent, was then examined, and his evidence favored the plaintiff’s case. W. Finlay, express driver, deposed to having been spoken to by McCutcheon, who said that he had got G ulter’s things to take care of whi'e he was in gaol.—This was th ■ plaintiff’s case. The defence was that the defendant was responsible for certain debts duo and owing by the plaintiff, and that he held certain goods in satisfaction of his claim. Other goods he ivas perfectly willing to deliver up at any time. The defendant haviag been partially examined, the case was adjourned.—After the lunch adjournment the hearing of the case was resumed,
and the defendant having concluded his evidence, and counsel having addressed the Bench, his Worship gave judgement for the plaintiff for L 26, with costs. Mr Branson asked what was the actual amount his Worship allowed or. the various items, and was told TO Mr Branson submitted that then his » urship could only give judgment for L 9. His Worship thought, otherwise. Mr Branson gave notice of appeal. His Worship consented to stay execution for three days.
Permanent link to this item
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 825, 22 December 1882
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 825, 22 December 1882
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.