Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
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.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

ASHBCR i'ON—Yestbrday. (Before H. C. S. Baddoley, Esq., R.M.) Betts v Horne, claim L 33 13a. —Mr Wilding for plaintiff ; Mr Purnell for the defendant. This was a claim for the amount paid by plaintiff to defendant for a reaper and binder, alleged to have been guaranteed by the latter as in good order, but which subsequently proved unworkable: and for special damage and the value of extras required by the machine. The evidence in support of this claim was reported in yesterday’s issue. After we went to press the following evidence was taken : —William Horne, agent for the New Zealand Grain Agency Company, said in January last he saw plaintiff In his (witness’s) office relative to the purchase ! of a threshing machine. Witness had reason to believe that plaintiff had treated with him as agent for the Grain Agency, as plaintiff meditated buying a Sarauelson machine, for which the G'ain Agency Company were agents. Witness recommended plaintiff to Ray. who had two second hand machines for sale. Witness was certain that Coulter was not standing at the door during the interview. Beyond referring plaintiff to Ray witness had nothing to with the transaction at all. Witness never guaranteed the machines ; he would give no guarantee for second-hand machines. The Samuelson machine at Ray’s was his property ; the Deering belonged to Ray. Witness did not tee plaintiff again before the purchase of the machines was completed. On Feb. 7th plaintiff came into witness’s office for the purpose of purchasing a new machine, assigning as his reason that he had got a larger quantity of cutting to do was in his original contract. Plaintiff said he had taken the Deering into Ray’s for repairs. Plaintiff never statedhisintention of returning the machine. On February 27 witness had conversation with plaintiff with reference to his account with the Grain Agency. Plaintiff said he thought that the L2O paid by him for the Deering should be deducted from the account, but witness ref us ad to agree to this, stating that plaintiff, if he had any grievance, should take proceedings against Ray. Witness distinctly denied ever having signified his willingness to assist plaintiff in Court. Witness received L3O for the Samuelson machine.—To Mr Wilding ; Witness gave LlO for the Samuelson machine at a sale held by Messrs Matson, Cox and Co. The Deering was bought by Hay with money lent him by witness. It was agreed that Ray should repay witness on his effecting a sale of the i eering. Witness authorised Ray to sell | the machine, and did not fix a minimum price. Witness could have sold both machines, subject to Ray’s approval. When these machines were sold witness received L3O and Ray Ll 5. Witness never to'd plaintiff to whom the machines belonged. He may have told him he had an interest in them, (f Ray had gu .ranteed the machines witness would have considered himself morally responsible. Witness had premised if possible to find the extras now claimed for—To Mr Parnell : .The money advanced to Ray was an ordinary loan ; witness had no lien on the machine. At t> pm. the case was adjourned till Friday next, April 24. Larceny. —Edward Martin was charged ; with the larceny of LlO from one William i Brown, of Methven. Owing to the late- , ness of the hour, accused was remanded till this morning.

To-Day.

(Before Messrs T, Bullock and J. Ivesa, J.P’s.)

Drunkenness. —A first offender was fl ed 5a and coats, with the usual alternative.

Larceny. —Edward Martin, alias Edward Barter, was changed with having stolen about LlO from one Malcolm Brown.—The accused pleaded “Not guilty.”—Sergeant Felton asked permission to amend the charge by reducing the amount to L 5, to enable the justices to deal with it aumm-arily. The accused consented to the alteration, and it was made —Malcolm Brown, a laborer, said he had received a cheque for Ll 4 2s 6d from Crould and Cameron. On Friday, April 10th, he cashed the cheque in Methven. He purchased some goods, including a purse into which he put his cash amounting to about Ll2. Witness was drinking during the day in company with accused, and in the evening went to sleep. On waking he mis-ed his purse containing the money, and had reported the loss to the police. He had not afterwards seen the accu -ed until the latter was arrested. —Thoa. Charles said on Fr iday, April 10, he had seen the last witness and the accused together in Methven. The former was under the influence of drink, but the accused was sober. In the evening witness had seen the two men together at Rowse’a Hotel. Brown was lying in the bar of the hotel asleep, and witness saw accused put his band in Brown’s pocket. Witness had not since seen accused until his appearance in Jourt.—John Fitzgerald, barman at Patton’s Hotel, said he had seen Brown and the accused together; the latter, who had no money, appeared to be loafing upon the former. After Brown reported the loss of his money the accused appeared to have plenty and spent it freely. Detective Jones had recommended witness to keep his eye on the accused—Robert R. Jones, detective officer stationed at Christchurch, said on : Saturday last, from information received, he arrested the accused at Christchurch railway station. Witness searched the accused and found 5s 6d in silver in one of. hia pockets. Detective Neil further searched the accused, and found -a half sovereign in his watch pocket Accused explaining he had held the half sovereign in nis hand while being searched. The accused was removed to the police station, when ho was again searched, and three LI notes found in a pocket let into hia singlet. The accused had been under police surveillance in Christchurch some time ago, and witness had warned the Methven publicans of him. [When asked if he had any questions to ask Detect! e Jones, the accuse;! said, “ 1 think he told a few lies there."’] —The accused made a long statement, alleging that the money found in his possession was hia own—Sergeant Felton said the accused had bean under police surveillance for some time. He had been previ uely suspected of larceny, and had several times been convicted of drunkenness,—The accused was ordered to be. imprisoned for six months with hard i labor-—The money found on the ac cused was returned to the complainant The Court then adjourned

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

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AG18850418.2.7

Bibliographic details

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1517, 18 April 1885

Word Count
1,074

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1517, 18 April 1885

Working