RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Press, Volume XIII, Issue 1718, 27 August 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.

CHBTSTCHcrnCH—August 25. [Before 0. C. Boweh, JEsq, E3C;] John Blakely, an old offender, a numbs? rf convictions againet whom were endorsed on the charge*eheet, and William Cooper, , were charged with having been drunk and incapable on the previous evening. '. Cooper wae fined 10s and Blakoly 40s, ha Worship commenting upon the number V times the latter had appeared before the coorfc civn. cases. G-lorer v. Mrs Humphreys—Claim of M* for fourteen weeks board and residence, m Joynt appeared for defendant. Fromi we evidence it appeared that Ihe defendant (v» Dwyer), had been.boarding in Mr <«?***• house for a considerable time previous to ncr marriago. She had been seVeral times sw«y for a period, the last occaeion being focn «w was employed at the White Hart. After_»ho loft that place eho stayed for a period oi lonr tern weeks. In the course of examination Mr Gldror stated that hef did not understaco that Miss Dwver was Btojing with him w -w character of a vbitor. Ho made no appJiw* tion for money tililately but of respect o her. It hud elwaya .been his intention .w charge her for board and lodging- »« Pvyvcr had paid for board andjodging^ 1 " eho returned from . the .White _ M» Huraphreje eaid, that on ty™*™ White Earfc she had three .intiUtione F °® .go. and etaj with™ one of wluch was from jtra Glover. 3»e■ J» Mfeed to go as a friend; She had fully ««J pensated them for.her boprd.by,<bejpressi w which etib ttnU tw ' w» nover paid any tTifrig for board »«« iheJ\Yhito nart. The. caee was adjoornecyw thTee weeks, fp ena6lo tha evidence o* » Glover to bo taken. -V ~ .. nia ManTcirtfl*. w vwii&m M,M M of estsWe asa ei^e

by plaintiff tmdeftflI***; Jilt CowlWiaw appeared for the B ? mcm of»«diitn of ngreemonfc was -M«*j h,,t contained no reference to any a building. A letter of a prior g offß nce ndum wa3 produced roferm «? *f S and the plaintiff stated that -M^Z^ to the agreement being signed, i „, had Torballv agreed to make an baa uild - ng . Mr Cowlishaw A«t the agreement about the build- *» W^ n Se apart from the lease. His jog **-..M he did not fee how he could go Bent had been paid to 0 «t!v without Tiny deduction being nonsuit the plaintiff. Muliins—Claim for £3, balance ™g eß ' J ud S ment for £1 > pUißtifftoFl fj[Jciaitn for £3, the balance for which plaintiff sold to defendant cf *°- w of celling fruit on the racecourse, nroved that others were allowed to himself; defendanc had not taken "have them removed. Judgi JSftS£e« done to cattle by illegal *" iSmraisd for pound fees. From the " iß ? oS akam)eßred that the defondant took o f a action of land belonging to •fflSSrr Defendant had a written authocattle from that land. The n<y j.whe nlaintiff had seen Mr Sandry and W thi.cattle go. The defen- - Tkaot possession of them and took them t tl tlia ooenci. After hearing the evidence ?«A«hio pointed out that the defendant Sl«f£w.to detain them after they had Sn wtaused by the owner of the land. Hβ judgment for the pound fees, £2 ?s£Zil fa damage, £5 3s, together with iSSnent for'foU amount and costs was • «?n Aβ following cases :— J. Anderson t *"£ BH«*t, £419s 9d ; City Council v. E. t IS Bβi "Evening Mail" v. Back ZZmms, £5 12a 6d; came t. H. KlOl, James MoUoy t. Vt. Forster, 2; " erne r. W. Elliott, £4 ; same v. James SmT£l 7s6d ; H. Montgomery v. G. I L. Berliner v. C. Lake, lfo. Wednesday, August 26. [Before C 0. Bowen, Esq., R.M.] crvxL. J Wood tP, 0. Threlkeld—This was an ■jetiontq recover £66 13s, as balance due on a extract for the erection of a schoolroom for Kaxton school committee, of which defendant i, Chairman. Mr (Jarrick was counsel fcr the plaintiff; Mr Joynt for defendant, Pluntife counsel eaid Uiere were two quesRotator the Court's decision : the first, as to the liability of the school committee; the lecond, ac to the payment of a certain sum of £9 6s, which the committee had deducted for the salary of the schoolmaster, and which was jndtded in* the; claim. His Worship said he #d iwfc $ib t<> raise any difficulty, but fhe j wHmuare annexed to the summons showed no Mttlement of account, and the Court therefore hednojurisdiction. The case, however, night be gone on with if the learned counsel rare to sign a memorandum in accordance ■with the 20th clause of the Eesident Magi*tnte'sActfixpreesing their assent tosuchacourse Wng adopted. Mr Joynt considered it would prqudiee hie client if he were to do so, ac the femmittee repudiated the liability to pay {he £9 6s on the ground that it was a liability of the Education Board. A cheqae for the aaioant claimed, minus the £9 6a. had been sent op to Wellington for Mr Tancred'e sigfiatere. In reply to the Court, Mr Threlkeld said the money would not be paid to plaintiff until the question of the £9 6s were added. His worship suggested that the case shotild be adjourned for. a week, until the deque ns returned. Mr Joynt would, in addition to objeciaonfl he had already raised, want oat fiit the case was beyond the Court's jarisdidioa, as the contract was made in IJexten. ~Mr Garrick urged that the case jioald be proceeded with at once. All that his cKeat wished. t<q know was whether defentowas.to s .pay the £9 6s or not; and he would point oat that his client had been Badly dealt with, es he had sent in a tender in raponee to an adrertisement which fixed CO liability upou anybody ; and Mr Threlkeld fu now enaeeyouring to escape payment by • %al teebnicsiitj. Mr Joynt said tho plaintiff faiew perfectly well when he was dealing iri& Threlkeld that the latter was acting on behalf of the' Committee. , After some further arguments, the case was iSjowned for a fortnight, in order that the particulars attached to the summons might iM amended, so as to bring the case within the jurisdiction of the Court. LrTTBLTOK—August 25. [Before W. Donald, Esq., B.M.] Judgment was given for the plaintiffs, with CMfe, in the following civil cases :—Roper v lMltt-£t.ft 6d; Boper v WUliams, £6 17s Mj Mutton v r Ehodesj £12 19a. Ejiatoi—Auguet 25. ~<Belbre G. L. Mehish, Esq, R.M.) SCABBY SHEEP. 6. n> Moors was charged on seven informa* to with being tho owner of 20,000 scabby *WpJ A £ac of £700 was inflicted, to be fflWttefi if the sheep are certified by the lWs*etor to be clean within six months. THE CATTLE ACT. B. Paekwood was charged with removing a Portion of a carcase from an infected to a noninfected district, contrary to Clause 7 of the Diseased Cattle [Regulations. Bub-inspectcr Burtenehaw deposed —On JwJclot attention was directed to defendant, y;ho was taking a piece of beef OTer the Kaiapoi swing-bridge. He followed «O, when defendant threw the piece of meat mww oarmng into Mr Porter's garden, and o*de qS. He gave chase and made up to aidant gome distance further along, when ««BBSedhaving done anything wrong. J. Moreisoa stated—On Tuesday last defenotttwas in Mβ shop. Witness gave him a jaecesfbeef. By the-JBench—A conversation had taken P»oe between us about beef being carried over ft* bridge. I believe I mentioned to liim it *M"Bofc r ; g ]j t to % c?!e £ over t jj e bridge. Waidant offered to take a bind quarter of ™h prer the bridge if it was given to him. Defeadant admitted the offence ; but when wi saw the police following him, though he «osot previously.-know he was doing wrong, wajghl to theii, and threw the meat away. MfMellish— It is quite clear you did this own responsibility, and your statement is not true that you were not aware you ■c© ia the wrong to act as you did. Because v?B.JSI!£ en ? Q, to see a police officer walking you, it was evident you knew you were i®H wyong, or why throw the beef away. I K»»U fine you the fullest and only penalty that power to inflict, You ; will be fined *w, because you acted wilfully in the matter. AKOTHEB CATTLE CASE. *•& Harrison, fined £50 on a formei for having refused to ehoot a diseased by Inspector Hurse and others t<: M his property, appeared to show cause whj should not be inflicted, having concidemtely allowed by the Eesideni "*gistrate a re-hearing. Hurse detailed the former cvi the claiming of the beast b] «? oefaidant Harrison, and his denying th< j""tt»hip of $ when it had been destroyed a ',i i s unleaß permitted to examine it as t< ""ftHier it was infected or not. •lames Bickurs, B. Moody, and a nativ «»wor named Tβ Aik were examined for th 22?f« their evidence agreed that th r?»W»i«:haa at the time of hie firetclaimin «c beast ia questiou at a muster of cattle o: "*» afterwarile dietinctiy denied th ""Wrsliip, and eaid he had mistaken th ■» wilnesa named Barker for the prosecutio defendant at the time the Inepectc him to shoot the beast, said "B rSga* o4 shoot another mane beast»' on tw

"She Besidenfc -Magistrate utd fee Laot granted a re-heaiing ta allow of the fullest evidence being oblained, and he thought the greatest w .exght of evidence was on the side of «ie defendant. The defendant had made a mistake, and had advertised for the real owner of the beast. - The Inspeotor asked before the decision of the bench was given that the case should be lurther adjourned. Mr case has been «roiag on for some lime. I must consider it closed now, and will disuuß3 it. Mr Harrieon—Can I claim tho fire shillings paid for the burial of the beast ? Mr Mellish— That the inspector will refund. -the Inspector—l shall be unable to refund it, your worship ; I account monthly to the Government. MrMellijh—But they will refund H. Ine Inspector—l do not think bo. I will have to make it up oat of my own pocket if I pay tho defendant. Mr MelUsh—l will see that you do not lose it. packwood's case. Sergeant Barlow stated ho had been at Packwood's residence since the hearing of the case, and found that there were not goods sufficient to distrain upon. The Bench then issued a warrant of committal to gaol for three months. CITIL CABES. Harrison v. Pashby and Edwards—Claim £2. Plaintiff nonsuited. Armstrong v. White—Claim £39 6s 4d ; set-off filed £12 3s 4d. This was a claim for price of wheat sold, and the set-off was for loss on the wheat, being inferior to sample as well as a difference in the bags supplied for the delivery of the wheat and those really delivered. Judgment was given for defendant. Proprietor of the "Press" v. Buchanan— Claim £3 5s 6d. Judgment for plaintiff. Staunton v. Burrell—Claim £12 7e lid; set-off £1 6s Bd. Judgment for plaintiff £11 Is 3d. Staunton v. Merrin—Claim £7 17s Bd. Judgment for plaintiff £4 10s 6id.