THE COURTS.—TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 6759, 26 November 1884, Page 2

THE COURTS.—TO-DAY.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.)

Judgment was given for plaintiffs in the following oases, with costs:—6. Blyth v. W. Moore, claim, Ll7 8s 9J, for worn and labor done; British and New Zealand M. and A, Company, Limited, y. J. S. O’Brien, L 4 13s 2d, goods supplied; J. Alman v. 6. F. Steven, LS 12s 6d, furniture supplied; J. C. Burman v. E. Genever, LI 10s, on a promissory note. Thomas Fogo v. W, C. Rowlandson.— Claim, L 9 6a 51, on a judgment summons. Defendant did not appear, and no excuse being offered on his behalf, defendant was ordered to pay the debt, with costs, by December 10, in default ten days in Invercargill gaol. W. Conway v. W. Robb. —Claim, L2 ss, balance duo on d promissory note and cash lent. Judgment was given for plaintiff for 16s, with costs. P, Grant v. H. Bere.—Claim, L 9 17s, for work done and material supplied. Mr Catomore appeared fer the plaintiff; Mr Gallaway for defendant. —After hearing some evidence the case was adjourned for a week.

W. Cameron v. J. Paterson.—Claim, LI 13s 6c3, money alleged to have been lent. —Jadgmenfc was given for plaintiff for 11s (id, and costs. J. Sharp v. J. Shand.—Claim, L 24, wages alleged to be due and damages for wrongful dismissal.—Mr Sim appeared for plaintiff; Mr Macgregor for defendant.—Judgment for defendant.

CITY POLICE COURT.

(Before Messrs J. Logan, H. Gourley, and

A. Rennie, J.P.s.)

Drunkenness.— Joseph Hughes was fined ss, in default twenty-four hours’ imprisonment; Adam Walker, 10s, or forty-eight hours’.

Bbeaou of the Peace. Annie O'Brien was charged with using provoking language towards Anno Sherry on Sunday last. Mr E. Cook appeared for the complainant.— The parties are neighbors, and the complainant and a witness named Sauntd gave evidence that defendant used provoking language all day Sunday.—Sergeant Bevin stated that ho visited the locality and found the defendant the worse for drink. He had to caution the parties that if theydid not conduct themselves better bo would be under tbe painful necessity of clearing them all out.— Defendant; I have cleared out, and I never want to get into such a “orib” again. Begorra, it's a foinecase to employ a solicitor

in. (To the witness Saunt6); Yeti just wait, SauntiS, I’ll punish you for this.—The Bench ordered defendant to find one surety in the sum of L 5 to keep the peace forJjftdmonths.—Defendant i Ojmkecurity for Hoi nft bleßsed objeßjptgf ‘tqjjfe,-, I’ll send ■•fij&old Bjat —— jt.—-IChpßench ordered JmK womairs remtjrab ~ 2. fIptARCKSY AS w|| ropged, 6nrfl«*Dd,.,for th|t on.tbe(T(tinst,, - 'a£/Dnnedin, fj; liifrlheh of a horse and tip-dray, did convert the same to his own use, Mr Solomon appeared to prosecute, Mr M‘Keay for the defendant.— Moss Moss gave evidence to the effect that he went to Mr O’Connor’s place at Blueffkin, hut. c0u1d..,-net*.see,, thg, dray or horse involved In these proceedings, ‘ the grantor of hj bill of sale was hot a bailee under the Larceny Act of 18ff7, and if he were 'nof a liailee the whole ease dropped.' Probably their Worships would remember that about two sessions ago at Invercargill there was a case tried of larceny as a bailee. In that case it was net a mere bill of sale, but a mortgage of stock for which special provision had been made under section 19 of the Chattels Security Act, and the ease fell through. If provision was specially male that the grantor of a mortgage of stock was a bailee, it clearly showed that the grantor of a bill of sale was not a bailee. He submitted that no criminal proceedings whatever oopkj be taken against the grantor of a bill of sale inasmuch as he was not a bailee under the Larceny ,Act of 1867. Not a single case of larceny as a bailee conld be found in the authorities where a bill of sale had been given.—Mr 'Solomon contended that a bailment was a bailment apart from any other Act, and that a prima facie case had been ..established.— I The Bench, .by majority,' decided to pdtt'mit the accused foetrial, Bail w6hld be allowed in aooortd’r own recognisance 1pr,.L50, and two sureties for L 25 each.