Resident Magistrate's Courts.

Bruce Herald, Volume IX, Issue 896, 10 April 1877, Page 6

Resident Magistrate's Courts.

» BA-LCLTOTHA. Wednesday, 4th April, 1877. (Before Mr E. H Carew, E.M.) THOMAS HUGHAN (rAIjGBr) V. ROBERTSON. Information for removing timber from Crown lands at Catlin's River. Defendant pleaded not guilty, but the offence was proved br T. G. Hungerford, Ranger, and defendan: waa fined 455, aud witness' expenses, 15s. SAMS V. M'LSAN. Information for felling timber on Crown lands at Catlin's River, not being licensed. Defendant pleaded not guilty, but T. G. Hungerford proved the offence. Defendant said he was working on another section at the time of tbe alleged offence, but on pointing out the place he was working at on the map he pointed to the middle of the very section on which he was charged with felling the timber. Fined 45s and costs. SAXB V. LATTA. Similar information. Fined 45s and costs. MITCHELL BhO9. V. SIEVWRIGHT. Claim, £5 15s.— Mr W.Tcylor for plaintiffs ; Mr Henderson, for defendant, pleaded tender of £1 15, and not indebted for the balance. Mr Taylor called G. F. Mitchell, who stated that about the 14th February defend ant came to him at bis house and asked him tor a tender for papering the new shop built for him by Evans, a furniture dealer. He went and saw tbe place, but gave no tender. By defendant's instructions he commenced the work next day, or the day after. The choice of the paper was left to himself. Cross-examined by Mr Henderson : Defendant told him to do the work. Evans did not tell him. He did not at first know whether Evans or defendant bad to pay him, and he entered it on a slate to both of them jointly. Subsequently, he asked Evans for payment, but be refused to pay as he bad not authorised the work to be done. He then charged it to defendant iv bis books (produced) This was before Evans filed. He asked defendant for payment before Evans filed, but it was refused. He then tendered his account after Evans filed, and was again refused. S. Mitchell, in part, corroborated the first witness' statement. This was plaintiff's case. Mr Henderson then called defendant, who stated that be went to plaintiffs and told them that Evans wanted them to tender for the papering. He went because Evans was busy, and he (himself) was not, and he wanted to get into the shop as sooo>aa possible. Plaintiff' came down with him to the shop, but gave him no tender. He did not authorise plaiutiffs to do tbe work, and did not see them again until the paper was being put on. He objected to the paper because it was too dark to show off' boots properly when hung up. He did not stop the work or go to Evans because he thought Evans had ordered the paper. He never authorised tbe work to be done. Cross-examined by Mr Taylor — He had not asked Mr Stewart for a tender for papering tbe room. He bad not gone to Stewart at all. He had asked Stewart what would be the cost of painting his sign. On seeing Mr Stewart in the audience defendant admitted that he bad asked what would be the cost pf papering a room about the sige of his shop ; then that he bad asked for a tender for the shop. His Worship asked if there was any difference between "the room" and " tb« shop " Defendant admitted there was not. His Worship— How can you reconcile your two statements that you had not asked Stewart for a tender for papering the room, and you had asked him; for a tender for paper* ing the shop? Can you see no difference between them ? Defendant— l cannot see any difference between them, Thi§ closed defendant's case, and bis

Worship who declined to believe defendant's j statement,' as be had prevaricated and contra- | dieted himself several times, gave judgment j for the full amount claimed and costs. SULLIVAN TO GILMOUR. Application for transfer of license of Jetty Hotel, Kaitangata. Mr Henderson appeared in support of th» application which was granted. His Worship stating that the report from Naseby gave Mr Gilmour an excellent character while be held a license in that ptace.