KAIAPOI.

Press, Volume XXI, Issue 2490, 29 July 1873, Page 3

KAIAPOI.

Moxday, July 28. (Before G. L. Hellish, Esq., R.M.) Larceny as a Bailee—Robert Martin on remand, was charged with larceny of a saddle. Mr Messent, Moeraki Downs, stated accused put a horse into his stable at livery. On taking it away there was a dispute about his not having got the right saddle, and witness told him to take his—the one produced—but to remember to bring it back. He did not authorise accused to sell the saddle and had not seeu it again till it was recovered by the police. To the Bench—Had known accused some time. When he came back he said he had not sold the saddle but only left it with the horse. He had brought accused'e saddle to the Court, Sergeant

Pratt explaiued that Joseph Page,—to whom the saddle had been sold— could not attend, the police had received a telegram stating he had met with an accident. Accused made a statement with Messenr's evi'!e;>c in which he s.-\id he sold his horse, saddle. Ac, to Pasje, with the proviso that when his saddle was found Inwould send it to Pago's and take Messent's. The saddle produced was '<ie*seiit"s, but the irie s'poTn by M«.'.•?sent as to him (.tfci.'dcd) Wii.s not his. In reply to the Resident Mairistratc h<- sai i ho h-.ui worked for some rears ;'":■ Mr Mi : i-sn ( Sprinys'oii. 1 he Resident M;i s -ist. r iite dismissed the e<is.- ;

Messent's saddle to be sent to him, and the other one to be sent to Mr Page. s&.Cattle at Laruk—On the information of mounted constable Gilchrist. T. G. Russell, owner of two cows, and G. U. Price, owner of two horses, were fined 03 each, with costs 6d6d.

" Civil Cases—H. Revel 1 v W. Stonyer. Claim £10 4s Id ; set off. £d Us -id ; judgment for plaintiff for £5 His Id. W. Stonyer v 11. Rtvell, claim £12 ss, damages to a spring cart and quantity of flax fibre through a smouldering lire having been left by defendant on a road from the Cam bridge to the girder bridge. The case was heard at a former sitting of the Court, and the Resident Magistrate now gave judgment for the plaintiff for £12, observing that the defence set up was bad, inasmuch as it was not shown iv evidence that the plaintiff's son had shown negligence and driven purposely into thetire. The defence that the road was through private property also did not hold good. No notice was put up stating that the road was a private one, and the plaintiff, it appeared, had as much right to go on it as defendant, as the latter did not appear to pay rent for it. The defendant had certainly been the cause of the damage in allowing the fire to remain upon the road. Mr Revell asked for a re-hearing, which, he was informed, could not be granted. He then asked leave to appeal, and was informed that if he would Submit a case the Resident Magistrate would cousider it. Ashworth v Armstrong ; claim £9 OS 6d, set-off, £'.> 0s 8d ; judgment for plaintiff for £1 11s lid and costs. 11. Terry v D. Sladden ; claim £92 ; Mr Clark for plaintiff. This case was adjourned from the 7th; judgment was given for plaintiff for £31 l'.)s 3d, inclusive of the amount paid into Court. D. Sladdeu v 11. Terry ; claim £48 7s Del ; Mr Garrick for plaintiff ; Mr Clark for defendaut. This was for a breach of contract and damages ; judgment was given for plaintiff for full amount aud costs. Several smaller cases were settled out of Court.