ASHBURTON.

Press, Volume XLV, Issue 7159, 21 September 1888, Page 6

ASHBURTON.

Thursday, September 20. [Before Mr C. A. Wray, R.M.] Assault. —Richard Mulchay was chare&i with assaulting John Smith. From IS evidence of Smith and several other Wit* uesses, Mulchay appears to have ffone to a house where Smith and his companion? had been sleeping at Tinwald, and out any apparent provocation, proceeds to beat and kick Smith so badly as tonece*. sitate his removal to the Hospital, jSi' cused, in defence, said Smith had c&£d\ him names, and accused him in AshbmT ton of workiug for low wages. Accn2* saw Smith in the hut at Tinwald, andgave him a slap with his open hand hS did not hurt him. He was lined 10s •fa default seven days' imprisonment. A*lS qneet for time to pay was not granted/ the police reporting unfavorably of !S? cused's character. ■ ; Prohibition.—A prohibition orderwm issued against Charles SmitheL ■ Alleged False Pretences. — Jams. Tait was charged with obtaining from Andrew Dawson the sum of £1 by mats, of false representations. Mr Cuthbertecio appeared tor accused. The evidence )3 was to the effect that accused met Wfl. ■ liara Porter and asked for payment oisjs account of £1. Porter replied that he hid no small change, but would leave tb money that day for Tait with Mr Noket This was afterwards done, and Tait, doit ing the afternoon, called at Mr NoW shop, and was paid the £1, which had duly left by Porter. During the samedw Tait met Mr Dawson, Porter's employer and asked him to pay the amount owing by Porter, Dawson subsequently giviu Tait a cheque for £1. Accused had previously asked Porter to give him anorow on Dawson, but this Porter refused to da, as he would be able during the day toper -" him cash. Accused was further charmd with obtaining, by means of thm representation, £3 from George Charfr bers on September sth. Evidence in this case was called to show that Talfc had gone to Chambers and represented that he wanted the money for l David Smart, who had been suddenly called away to Christchurch, and had left with- ■' out taking any money with him, where* : upon Chambers gave Tait a cheque few £3. Constable Smart said that on re. ceiving a telegram summoning him: to his father's death-bed he had engaged Tait to convey to his friends at Methvea any message he might telegraph onfcU arrival at Kaiapoi. He had authorised Tait to hire a horse and buggy, if neoe* sary, on his account, but he had in 04 way authorised him to borrow mopey la his name either from Chambers or any other person. Chambers had subsequent!/ complained to Smart that Tait had used his name when asking for the tnoow. Chambers, in his evidence, said that 11 Tait had asked for the money for himself he would have lent ft t& him, and would have been as well wtlK fled with Tait's security as with that of Smart. Mr Cuthbertson submitted theft with regard to the first case no evidence whatever had been shown of intent to defraud on Tait's part. When he obtained the cheque from Dawson, accuatd was not aware that the £1 had been left at Nokes' shop by Porter. The Magistrate held that there was a doubt as to the time of day accused received the money from Davrsou, and as to whether accused knew at the time he did so that Porter had left the money, as promised, with Nokes. He would thereforejgw accused the benefit of that doubt With regard to the second case, the Magistrate - did not think the evidence led was ettfc •' flcient to support the charge. At tht same time he must caution the accused against the very equivocal position he had placed himself in. Both information* would be dismissed. - ,

Civil Casks.— J. G. Restell vR, Gouldclaim £1 3s 6d ; judgment for pl*lnfclfj. Union Fire and Marine Insurance Com? pany v John Pearson. Mr Outhberteoa for the plaintiff company. This was M application for a writ for ejectment. fbl; company held a mortgage over a ceruiui / tenement in the possession of thedaM* dant, and as no payment on accourt of either principal or interest had bean made since 1884, the plaintiff company aottght to get possession ot fche property. Defendant asked for time to seek another place of abode, and the case was adjourned fora fortnight. David Thomas v Danielßrtofc,' claim £8 Os 3d, commission on the sale of a certain line of sheep. Mr Wilding for plaintiff, Mr Holmes for defendant, The case was partly heard at a previous sitting of the Court. Further evidence was now called. C. J. Haroer said he had placed the sheep In Mr Thomas' hands for sale, and subsequent to ' the sheep being bought by Mr JBrififc witness had heard Brick authorise Mv Thomas to sell the sheep. K. M. Jones, stockman, deposed to hearing a conversation between Messrs Brick, Taylor and Thomas, during which Brick toldThomee that the price of the sheep was Bssd. Ttf* lor, on being appealed to, confirmed thfe, and Brick authorised Thomas to receire Taylor's cheque for thi* aheep, and then pay Brick. Mr Holmes then stated that case for the defence, find called Daniel ' Brick, who said he was a farmer living, near Lauriston. On August 28th witness* bought a lino of hheep from Mr Harper, but Thomas did not come up to him walls he was negotiating with Mr Harper and say he had an offer of 9a,» per head for them. Thomas tan* to him about twenty minutes after the purchase, aud said he had an offer for the sheep, when witness replied thatJift would take Oβ Od a head and no lees, but he never authorised Mr Thomas to re-sell the sheep. Mr Thomas never pointed oat Mr Taylor, of Geraluiue, as the man. wb» v would give witness 9a 5d for the eheejk Witness got an order to remove the ehee& and when he went into the yards for tills purpose Taylor came up to him, ofleredto buy the sheep, and finally the bargain w» struck at 9s 5d per head and £1 over, Wβ the re-sale was effected »ithout any inter* vention on the part ol Thomas. Sutefr quent to the re-sale witness told ThojnM he could take Taylor's cheque for tw sheep, and refund witness hie profit* £15 2s 6d. At this time no mention vis made by Thomas about commlssw*-* on the re-sale of the sheep. Witha* bad had a similar transaction with W , Thomas the previous week, and no VXtjr mission on the re-sale had been ch&r£ea» Brick mentioned this to Thomas, «M some hot words passed between them m the latter's office. After the snmmoß* had been served on witness on Septetfc** 10th, plaintiff's clerk came to him on tw following day, and wanted to takej~* summons back, at the same time sayiflS he would take all responsibility for W doing. Witness did not authorise Tlion»» to sell the sheep at any price at aIL -»• merely stated that he would not take lew than 9s 6d for them. Thdmas did #* hear witness and Taylor talking about V* sheep till after the resale. Farthe*e* dence having been given, and *ojW»j • having addressed the Bench, the ««* trate said there were several point* cm* , nected with the case he would like to Wβ* eider, and he should therefore ieseW*B* decision till next Court day.