MILTON

Bruce Herald, Volume VIII, Issue 793, 18 August 1876, Page 5

MILTON

TuEsnAY, 15tii August,

(Before J. P. Maitland, Esq., R.M.)

Civil Cases

JOHN m'nICOL V. F. GUINNESS. In this case, the plaintiff, as Clerk to the Waihola District Road Board, sued the defendant for £10 7s, rates due. Mr Taylor appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Reid for the defendant. Mr Taylor said he was of opinion that the name of the Board would have to be substituted for the name of the Collector. Mr Reid said he would uot raise the objection. He would ask whether Mr Taylor held an authority from the Board to sue ; or whether, in the event of not having such an authority, he would guarantee the costs if the Board lost the case. Mr Taylor said he had been instructed at the last moment, and had uot any authority under seal of the Board. He would not give any guarantee. Mr Reid said he would not insist upon a strict compliance with the law, although under similar circumstances he was sure his learned friend would have raised the objection.

After some further discussion, Mr Reid contended that the particulars furnished were insufficient. His client was in a very peculiar position, and he must know the locality of the land in respect of which he was sued for rates. The case was adjourned until next Tuesday. J. HUGHES V. THE MANUKA HILL GOLD MINING COMFANY. This was an action to recover £23 wages due. The case had been adjourned from a previous sitting of the Court, in order that the regulations of the Company might be proved. That having been done, judgment was given for the amount sued for, with £2 6s costs. Mr Reid appeared for the plaintiff. NEIL M'GILP V. THE BRUCE COAL COMPANY. This was a claim for £16 16s 3d, part payment for the erectiou of a fence, and for a heifer killed by falling into a pit made by the defendants. Mr Reid appeared for the plaintiff. Mr Lees (manager of the Company) stated that the fence erected by the defendant was not a proper fence within the terms of any Ordinance. He had also received four different accounts for the same work, varying considerably in amount. He knew nothing about the heifer. The plaintiff's evidence was to the effect that some months ago he made 20 chaius aud a-half of a boundary fence between his laud and that held by the defendants. He had charged them half the cost of the material, and half the value of his labor. Ho had frequently applied for payment, but had been put off from time to time. He bad strained the wires three times. He had been a fencer on one station for seven years, " but such carrying on with wires he never did see." The fence had been damaged by a land slip, and then the Company refused to pay, as it was not in accordance with the Ordinance. One of his heifers had been killed in a hole, but he could not swear whether the hole was dug by the Company's men, or whether it was on the Company's ground.

Charles Falconer gave evidence to the effect that the fence erected by M'Gilp was worth £l per chain, compared with other fences on the Company's ground, which had cost £l 3s per chain.

Peter M'Gill also gave evidence, and stated that tbe fence was a very poor one. The Company had always been willing to pay M'Gilp when the fence was put iv proper order. The wires wanted straining, and a new sod was required all along the bank. His Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff for £10 ss, at the rate of £1 per chain for the fence, with £2 costs. T. CROSSAN V. KAYE. In this case the plaintiff sought to recover £38 5s 9d, the amount of a judgment debt and costs. Mr W. Taylor appeared for the defendant, and stated that his client had been ill with rheumatism for the last two years, and had been unable to work. He was now in receipt of 30s per week, and bad five children to keep. His Worship said that it had not been proved that the defendant had been in a position to pay since the judgment had been given. The case would be adjourned for a month, to give the defendant any opportunity of carrying out his promise to pay os per week, o'brien v. legge. This was an action to recover .£3 17s far i work done,

Judgment was given for lis, the amount paid into Court, with costs.

FRANK CHYRSTAL V. WAYNE

This was a claim for £10 damages sustained by plaintiff through the defendant having seized and carried away certain household goods and provisions, on or about the loth of July last.

Mr Taylor appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Reid for the defendant, who plead not guilty, and justification.

From the evidence it appeared that some time ago the defendant leased certain property from the plaintiff, and at the expiration of the term of the lease the parties entered into the followiug arrangement : The plaintiff was to act as cook for the defendant, at a salary of £40 a-year, and the defendant was to still continue to hold the plaintiff's property, paying £15 a year. The plaintiff was to have the right to use two rooms of a house erected on the laud. The plaintiff entered into this arrangement, but after some months threw up the cooking. The defendant then considered that he was entitled to the whole of the house, as the agreemeut entered into had been broken by the plaintiff. The defendant had also agreed to give up possession of the w r hole of the land upon the plaintiff releasing him from a certain covenant he had entered into with reference to fencing. The plaintiff, however, contended that the agreement about the house was an after consideration altogether, and had nothing to do with the previous agreement. His Worship said that after hearing the evidence, he had come to the conclusion that the defendant's statement was the more reasonable, and he therefore gave judgment ia his favor.

Criminal Cases

THREATENING LANGUAGE

Thomas Burke was charged by Michael Casserly with having, on the 29th July, used abusive words to one Bridget Casserly, on the public road near Fairfax, whereby a breach of the peace might have been occa-

The defendant pleaded not guilty

Michael Casserly deposed that on the night of Saturday, July 29th, he heard the defendant calling out in the road, and making use of bad language towards his (witness') wife. He did not see Burke, but he knew his voice well. Witness was sitting in his house with his wife at the time. It was half-past eleven o'clock at night. Thomas Darcy was called as a witness, but said he knew nothing about the matter. He was allowed to stand down. James Casserly deposed that on tbe 29th inst., Thomas Burke and his uncle, John Whelan, were going up the road. They were a little groggy. When Mrs Casserly heard her dog barking, she called to it, " Heel 'em up, heel 'em up," and then Burke called out to her, " Maori, Maori." That was all he heard. Bridget Casserly deposed that she was ironing on the night iv question. She heard Hurkc aud his uncle yowling outside. Burke said he was the best man in Fairfax, and wanted Casserly to go out and fight. She told the dog to " heel them up," and then Burke called her a Maori. Thomas Burke then made a statement to the effect that while on his way home, on the night of the 29th, Mrs Casserly came out and sent the dogs after him. For the last three months Casserly and his wife had been aunoying him when he went up the road. Mr Maitland said there was evidently a very bad feeling between the parties. He would not give his decision until the other cases had been heard. BRIDGET CASSERLY V. ELLEN BURKE. Bridget Casserly charged Ellen Burke with having made use of indecent language to her on the 29th of July. Mrs Burke denied the charge. Mrs Casserly deposed that Mrs Burke was continually spitting into her gate and inviting her out to fight Mrs Burke, who called her "a rotten Maori." Mr Maitlaud said there was no evidence to support the charge of indecent language. He would give them all warning that if this sort of thing went on, he would have to bind half-a-dozen of them to keep the peace. THOMAS IH'BKE V. MICHAEL C.YSSKRLY. In this case Burke charged Casserly with having used threatening words to him on the Ist of August ou the public road at Fairfax. I Thomas Burke deposed that he was letting off some water in a ditch over the main road, when the defendant dammed it up again, and made use of some threatening language. ELLEN RUHK.K V. lIRIDGET CASSERLY. In this case Mrs Burke charged defendant with having assaulted her on the llth of July. j Mrs Burke said that, on the day in question, she was driving her cow when Casserly threw a stone at her dog. She told him that if he killed her dog one of his horses would , not pay for it. Mrs Casserly then came out ancl struck her, throwing a bottle and a stone at her. She struck Mrs Casserly and managed to save her own life. Mrs Casserly algo called her improper names. Malachi Grady deposed that he saw Mrs Burke going down with her cow on the llth inst. Casserly spoke to her, and then Mrs Casserly came out. Casserly told his wife to take a stone and fling it at Mrs Burke, and she did so. He heard Casserly tell his wife to go outside to Mrs Burke. Mrs Burke never invited Mrs Casserly out.

His Worship, iv giving his decision, said that the case disclosed a most disgraceful state of affairs. There appeared to be a regular Irish feud between the two families, who were leading a regular cat and dog life. If they ever came before them agam he would make it a lesson to them, for he would have them &U bound over to keep the peace,

There was blame upon both sides. He would dismiss all the cases, or else he should have to fine them all round. Thursday, 17th August.

Civil Cases, inspector or nuisances v. j. j. atkinson. In this case the defendant, who keeps the Commercial Hotel, was summoned for allowing a nuisance to exist on his premises. A fine of £1 and costs was inflicted. MOSS V. BRUCE QUARTZ COMFANT. In this case the plaintiff claimed £59 10s for work done. Mr Adams appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Reid for the defendants. Upon being asked to plead, Mr Reid said that, from the defective state of the particulars, he could not do so with any justice to his clients. Not a single date had been given in the particulars. There was a claim of about £11 4s for lost time, and about £50 had been claimed for day vrages, and also £10 13s for overtime. There was nothing before him to show tbe £11 4s claimed for lost time was not included in the £60 13s claimed for day wages and overtime. His application for an adjournment was not made for the purpose of causing vexatious delay, but the defendant did not really know what amount to pay into Court. Mr Adams stated that Mr Reid had had the case long enough in his hands to have enabled him to find out all this before. Mr Reid replied that he had not time enough at his disposal to study such a bill of particulars as the one that had been furnished. His Worship was of opinion that Mr Reid was placed at a disadvantage, and therefore granted an adjournment for a week. ELLEN CASET V. JAMES dlackwood. In this case the plaintiff sued the defendant for the purpose of compelling him to contribute towards tbe support of his illegitimate male child. Mr Reid appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Adams for the defendant. The evidence of the plaintiff was to the effect that while in the employment of Mr James Goodall, she had become intimate with the defendant. Their intimacy resulted in the birth of a male child on the 14th of July last. She swore that defendant was the father of the child, and that he had promised to contribute towards its support. Mr M'Williams and Dr Peter Stewart were also called to give evidence. The defendant swore that he was not the father of tbe child, and that be had not made any promise to the plaintiff. His Worship in giving judgment, said that from the evidence that had been given, he believed tbe plaintiffs statement that the defendant was tbe father of the child. At the same time, he thought the plaintiff, who was not a very young girl, was as much to blame as the man. He made an order for the payment of 5s per week.