Permanent link to this item
MAGISTERIAL., Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXII, Issue 6609, 30 June 1905
■fV (Before C. A. Wray, fcsq., S.M.) Wf STAMT ACT OFFENCES. ' F* Joseph R. Orr, typewtiter ngent, was \j charged with giving a receipt for an amount over £2 without affixing and cancels ling a stamp thereoD. Defendant pleaded not guilty. j- Serg6^fe4*VErhy; who conducted the case ' '■■ for the police, called The Key Mother Scholastica, who deposed that defendant sod the Ashburton Convent a typewriter, on account of which she paid Defendant gave a receipt, but he had bo stamps. > x In reply to defendant, witness said she remembered lot king for a stamp for defendant, but could not flud one. She arranged with defendant that she would afterwards affix a stamp to tho receipt and cancel it. This, however, she forgot to do. Defendant then entered the box and explained the circumstances. He had no stamp in his poscession, and as he waa in a hurry to catch a train, he left it to the Kevd. Mother to make the receipt a legal one. In reply to Sergt. Fouhy, defendant admitted that he had got into trouble with his employers over the sale of this typewriter to the Convent authorities He was arrested for not accounting for this sa^ to his employers, and was now on probation. ' His Worship read tho section of the Stamp Act referring to offences of this nature, and said he must convict defendant and inflict a fine of 40s and costs, four weeks being given in which to pay the fino. ALLEGED THEFT. ! Claude Bu3h was charged with the theft of a white blanket aad a portmanteau, valued at 30s, the property of Robert Shield?, Ashburton. Mr Buchanan appeared for the accused, while Sergeant Fouhy conducted the case for the police. Eobert Shields deposed that accused boarded at his house for about two monthp, 3eaving some five or six weeks ago. t-'ome time after accused had left, witness missed the articles mentioned in the charge, and witness thought that accused rn«st have returned to tho house to get some articles of his own which he left behind, and had then stolen the portmanteau i.nd the blanket. Witness identified the portmanteau produced .as his property, but could not swear to the blanket produced. By Mr Buchanan—Accused had no permission from him to take the articles alleged to be stolen. Mrs Shields, wife of the previous witness, corroborated her husband's evidence. She identified the] blanket, and also the portmanteau, as the property of her husbano\ Did not leDd ihe accused the blanket or the portmanteau to take away, but allowed him to keep his clothes iv tho portmanteau while they remained in her house. By Mr Buchanan—Knew two months ago that accused bad taken the blanket, and three weeks ago knew that he had taken the portmanteau. Keceived a letter from accused from Methven, recently, promising to pay a few shillings he owed for board. He afterwards wrote telling her that he understood the portmanteau and blanket were given to him, and promised either to return them or pay for them if this was not the case. He asked a fortnight in which to find the money. Wrote to accused after she missed the blanket, claiming only 10s for board. She did not think it worth while to mention the blanket. By Serjeant Fouhy—She gave information to the Police immediately she missed the portmanteau, and accused, after that, ■ wrote to her about the missing articles, offering to nay for them, and saying that Constable Shepherd had seen him about them. By Mr Buchanan—Accused paid los per week for board, and owed her for two days when he went away. Constable Shepherd gave evidence that, when the matter was placed in his hande, he saw accused, who admitted possession of the pormanteau and blanket, and said it was understood be was to pay Mrs Shields for them. By Mr Buchanan —Accused was quite straight forward about the matter and did not comport himself like n guilty person. Mr Buchanan having addressed the Court, defendant entered the witness box nnd gave evidence that, when he left Shields' place he asked Mrs Shields to get him a couple of blankets from the Woollen Mills. Mrs Shields said he neei not bother about getting- new blankets, as she could fix that up. He found two blunkots laid out on his bed when he was leaving, and took them away with him, arranging with Mr Shields when he left, to pay for them. Mrs Shields told him where she kept the key of the house, in case he came back for Borne articles he had left, while she whs out. He understood h6 was to take the portmanteau with him when he took his things. He had left a suit, which he valued at £2 10?, and an umbrella at Shields' house, and they were still there. His Worship said that he thought the accused's version of this matter was quite probable. Mrs Shields seemed prepared to treat this affair as a matter of business, and it was a great pity the case was ever brought before the court. The case was dismissed. BREACHES OF BY-LAWS. JoanFeeley was charged with riding a bicycle upon a footpath within the Borough, and was convicted and fined 5s and costs. CIVIL CASES. Robert Alcorn v E. Bennett, claim .£2O 6s 3d.—Judgment for pluintiff by default. B. J. Ager (Mr Acland) v. Arthur Wilson (Mr Buchanan), claim £3 10s and 7s interest thereon. In this case defendant was tenant of a certain house, the property of the late Captain Coleman, and plaintiff alleged he received orders from defendant to do some repairing in this house. Plaintiff carried oat the work, and now sued to racover from I the defendant the cost of such work. Albert Ager, architect, father of the plaintiff, gave evidence that he was architect for the re-building of this house, which ■was destroyed by fire some two years ago The specification for the re-building of the house did not include any provision for papering, but only for match lining. Had an ides there was some mention of rough match liningjscrimming and papering being substituted for smooth match lining, varnished, but it had nothing to do with mm. J. B. Ager, builder, the plaintiff, deposed that the defendant came to him after becoming tenant in the house in question, and got a quotation for scrimming and papering three room?, and a passage in this house. Plaintiff's father approached Captain Coleman and asked if ke would pay for the work done. Captain Coleman declined to do so, and said Wilson would have to pay for it if it were iove. Plaintiff told Wilson this, and Wib on gave him an order for the work to be done. Defendiint had latterly repudiated the debt. By Mr Buchanan—Could not remember whether the house was finished with smooth or rough match lining. By His Woi ship—Had carried out his contract with Captain Coleman, with the exception of the alteration in the contract otdered by Mr WilsoD, His Worship said that, if the room was rough lined and was not varnished, it seemed evident plaintiff was saving something off the contract. Plaintiff said he would save about 15b per room (on making a rough calculation) by putting in rough instead of smooth lining, but the hanging of scrim and paper would cost 17s 6d a room for labour alone, while the cost of paper and scrim as material only would cost about £2 103 a room. There was still about los worth o? varnishing to be done in each room when it was papered. To varnish a room all over would cost about 255. All that was claimed from Mr Wilson was the cost incurred in excess of tho contract price. Mr Buchanan called Arthur Wilson, the defendant, who deposed that when he made the arrangements for papering the house with the plaintiff, there was a distinct understanding that such papering should only be done if the cost did not exceed the cost of carrying out the work according to the original specification. The suggestion to paper the rooms came from the plaintiff, who urged him to pay £1 per room extra and have a good paper put in. This, defendant declined to do. He was not shown the paper before it was hung. When he received an account from plaintiff he took no notice of itMichael Macaulay, at one time an employee of defendant, corroborated defendant's version of an interview between defendant and plaintiff as to the arrangement come to between them in regard to papering. Plaintiff made the suggestion that papering be substituted for varnished match-lining. Heard nothing said about a Prkis Worship said that if plaintiff was to succeed in this action he must bring more proof of his statements. He must give judgment for defendant with costs, Tiie Court then adjourned.
MAGISTERIAL., Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXII, Issue 6609, 30 June 1905
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.
Papers Past now contains more than just newspapers. Use these links to navigate to other kinds of materials.
These links will always show you how deep you are in the collection. Click them to get a broader view of the items you're currently viewing.
Enter names, places, or other keywords that you're curious about here. We'll look for them in the fulltext of millions of articles.
Browsed to an interesting page? Click here to search within the item you're currently viewing, or start a new search.
Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.
Switch between images of the original document and text transcriptions and outlines you can cut and paste.
Print, save, zoom in and more.
If you'd rather just browse through documents, click here to find titles and issues from particular dates and geographic regions.
The "Help" link will show you different tips for each page on the site, so click here often as you explore the site.