RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), 30 October 1883, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

This Day.

(Before Captain Preece, R.M.)

DRUNKENNESS. John Boyle, charged with having been drunk at Taradale yesterday, Avas fined 5s and costs, Avith tho usual alternative. John Simkin, also charged with drunkenness, a. as remanded until Saturday. VAGRANCY. Henry Hudson was charged under the Vagrancy Act with having no lawful visible means of support. Prisoner : That is not my name ; my name is Edwin Hudson. His AVorship : Why have you given the name of Henry Hudson for several years past? __ Prisoner : I protested against it until I got tired. Constable Forstcr deposed to finding the prisoner last night in an old building at the foot of tho Cootc road formerly known as tho Old Men's Refuge. Ho Avas lying on tho floor covered up Avith a lot of old paper and scrim. The prisoner came out of gaol a Aveek ago, and had done no Avork since. Sergeant Burtenshaw gave corroborative evidence, and added that since tho prisoner came out of gaol last numerous complaints had been made about moat safes beingcleared, &c. He had been almost constantly in gaol for vagrancy for the last five years. The prisoner, in answer to tho usual question by tho Bench, muttered something about having a shilling on him when he was arrested. Ho hoped, if tho Court did not see its Avay clear to dismiss the charge, ho would be dealt .vith as leniently as possible. His AVorship sentenced the prisoner to three months' imprisonment .vith hard labor, and cautioned him that if brought up on a similar chargo again he Avould bo imprisoned for twelve months. CIVIL CASES. ', Burgess v. 11. Stanley.—Claim £5 15s Gd, goods supplied. Mr Cornford for the plaintiff. Judgment for the plaintiff, with costs 14s, ancl solicitor's fee £1 Is. Propriotor Daily Ti.LKon._rir v. Ilenare Tomoana. —Claim £3 Os Cd. Judgment for thcvplaintiff, with costs 10s. Noa-1 and Close v. Thomas AVood.—Claim £4 5s Gd. Judgment for the amount, less £1 10s paid since tho summons was taken out, Avith costs 13s. James Watts v. Lycettand Cross. —Claim £7 4s 9d. Judgment for the plaintiff, .vith costs £1 19s, and expenses of witness 3s. Murray, Roberts and Co. v. Lycett and Cross. —Claim £10 ss. Mr Cotterill for the plaintiffs. Jugment for tho plaintiffs, with costs £2 7s, and solicitor's fee £1 Is. Rolf v. Hari.vhira te Orihau. —Claim £100, judgment debt. Mr Loo appeared for tho defendant. Mr Cornford, for the plaintiff, called Mr Ingpcn, of tho Deeds Office, to produce a book showing that the judgment debtor is entitled to £600 a year as his share of tho. rental of To Apiti and Kaiwhaka blocks. Mr Cornford also said that since judgment had been obtained the defendant.had received two payments of rent from Mr Beetham. Several witnesses wero called to prove that the debtor had during the past twelve months sold .vhcat to Messrs Beck and Co., valuo for £57, receiving credit for same, and had paid both in wheat and in cash for goods received of a hawker named Gcorgo Smith. Mr AY. Orr, of Clive, deposed that in February last the debtor had wheat threshed by Avitness' men, of the valuo of about £75. Tho Avitncss was paid in Avhoat for threshing same. Mr Cornford addressed the Court, and said if tho evidence given to-day Avas contrasted with that given by tho debtor ..hen the case avus previously adjourned it Avould show Avliut reliance was to be placed in the statements of Hariwhira, who then declared ho Avas a pauper, and had no money or property, and never hoped to havo any. Tho ovidenco shoAved that ho had paid other people Avith Avhoat, whereas hn swore distinctly on his examination that ho possessed nothing. Ho had had a running account Avith the Avitness Smith, Avhich Avas paid in cash, and with whom he did sufficient business to cause Smith to declare he would give no evidence that would go against the natives. Ho had also received £30 rental from Mr Bcetham, and had paid £57 in kind to Messrs Beck and Co. How much Smith received ho (Mr Cornford) did not knoAV, owing to that witness having a bad jnomory, and his great umvillingnc.s to answer the questions put to him. Mr Lee aaicl it was not proved that his client had received £38 from Mr Beetham; it was very probablo that tho amount was attached for some previous debt, as natives frequently OAved moneys to their tenants. It had not been shown cither that the debtor was possessed of sufficient means to pay the claim einco judgment was obtained. Some argument on a legal point ensued, after which His Worship said ho was satisfied that the defendant .vas in a position to pay, ho would make an order that the debt with costs be extinguished in two payments, ono of £50 on the 28th February, and one of £53 10s on' March 31st next; in default two months' imprisonment. Addressing tho defendant tho Court expressed dissatisfaction that a man in his position should havo lowered himself to conceal facts from tho Court Avhich he had no right to do, nftor taking an oath to toll tho whole truth. Vautier v. R. Cooper.—Claim £13 Is Bd., judgmont dobt. Ordered to pay tho amount fortliAvith, .vith costs £3, also solicitor's fco £1 Is, or in default to bo imprisoned in Napier gaol for one calendar month. Lascolles v. Necnan.—Claim £5 ss, fee for professional services. Mr Lee for tho plaintiff. Defendant said he Avas not in a position to pay the amount. Mr Lascelles having given evidence, the Court gave judgmont for the amount, Avith costs lis. Mr Lee declined to take any fee. Hardy and Sidey v. Cottrell.—Claim £4 5s Mr Lascelles for tho plaintiffs, and Mr Leo for the defendant. After hearing the points of defence sot up, and tho evidence in tho case, ______ Worship gave judgment for tho plaintiffs, with costs 13s, and solicitor's feo £1 Is.