Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

THE COURTS.—TO-DAY.

SUPREME COURT.—IN BANCO.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) Re TiUijBANKRWXCY Act asd re As»ek| son.— His donor gave judgment herein as follows

It is sought to set aside these transactions on the ground that they are a fraudulent prefer? euce under the 21th section of the Bankruptcy Act, 1584, as amended by the 18th section ot the Bankruptcy Act, 188}, isd also that they are void under the statute of Kl zabeth. There is nothing whatever to support the latter contention, and the only question is whether they amount to a fraudulent preference as defined by thea* sections, Now, the ; e sections have received judicial interrelation in this court ia the case of Casteudylc v. the Official Assignee, of M'Lellan, (i N.Z., L.R. 07, and ia the court of Appeal in the case of the Official Assignee the Atoa JUairy Factory Company, 0 N.Z., L.R. 177. If the effect of the transaction is to give a preference if the debtor enters into it in contemplation of bankruptcy, and if one of thfc objects of tfio debtor in entering into the transaction is to give a preference to the particular creditor, then the transaction is Void under these sections. This is the interpretation which fiel been placed upon the words "with a Tiewef giriug a preference " wh oh occur In section 2| as amended by section 18 of the later Act. It & clear; therefore, from the words themselves an| from the interpretation plaped upon them that the intention of the debtor in entering into tits transaction is the main fact to be ooa* sidered. If a creditor thinks that as a matter of prudence It is advisable to get a debtor’s account reduced, there ia no reason why he should not take steps to that end. If he docs so he is entitled, in the event of Lis debtor’s bankruptcy, to ittain any benefit ha may have acquired unless any transaction cither amounts to an act of bankruptcy on the part of the debtor, or unless the transaction clearly comes within the statutory definition of fraudulent [preference. Now, as to the boots supplied in August and September, it seems to mo clear that they were not (supplied by the debtor fa contemplation of bankruptcy, bat wcie supplied in order that Messrs Ooombs might carry him or, and to assist him to tide over his difficulties. As a matter of fast, Messrs Coombs did cany him on, and paid all his trade liabilities in August aud September as they came clue. It was suggested that at the beginning of each mouth Anderson handed in customeis’ bills to Coombs as a cover for future advances to be made during the month. Anderson’s account with Coombs was however always in debit, aud Coombs states, and his statement is borne out uy the facts, that the bills were handed in in respect of advsncea mada the month before. 'lbe bills would ta .urally and propeily bo applied towards the liquidation of the film’s advances so long as the account was on the wrong s.de, and it always was on the wrong side. There may have been, and probably was, an understanding that if Anderson at the beginning of each mouth handed Cocmbs the bills bo got from his customers Coombs would carry him on during, the succeeding month, or, in other words, lend him more money, but in the account between them the bills would of coutsegoin reduction of the earlier indebtedness, so long as any earlier indebtedness existed. Now, if these principles be applied, and a comparison made cf the account put in on behalf of the Assignee with the second schedule attached to the notice of motion, it is shown on the face of the account as plainly as it is possible to show it that cash advances were made by Coombs throughout the period daring which the manufactured goods were supplied by Anderson m excess not only of the value of the goods, but also of the value of the goods plus all other moneys received during those periods by Coombs from Anderson. In the beginning, and up to the 9th of August, customers’ bills were received by Coombs from Anderson, according to the ordinary course of business between them. Anderson was then considerably indebted to Cocmbs, and these bill?, according to the ordinary principles of account kteping, would go towards the reduction of tha prior indebtedness. It baa never been, and could not be, suggested that the handing over of these bills constituted a fraudulent preference. We start, then, ffttn the 10th of August —the day after the customers’ bills w«ra given-and it will be borne in mind that na manufactured goods were supplied by Anderson to Coombs until the 17th cf August. So doing, we find that from the 10th of August onwards to the 4th of October—tha day on which the last goods were supplied by Andersen Coombs supplied Anderson with cash and goods to the amount of LSBS Os 5d ; while the total amount of manufactured goods and customers’ promissory notes given by Anderson to Coombs dating the same period amounted to L 339 10s 91 only. It is out of tha question to suggest, under such circumstances, that the disposal of these manufactured goods was a fraudulent preference. Coombs, however, disputes the accuracy of the Assignee’s account, and puts in an account showing that Anderson’s liability was increased to a still greater extent daring this period. The ease as to the bills which were handed over in October docs not rest on the same considerations as tha supply of manufactured goods, The evidence o! Anderson ts to this occurrence was relied on by Mr Thornton as tiuthfnl, and I sea no reason why it should not be believed. There is no evidence to contradict it, and there is nothing in the surrounding circumstances which make his account at all Improbable. He had stated to Messrs Coombs that he hoped to hand over customers’ bills in the beginning of October to the amount of Ll4O. He had given a bill to Butler Bros., which camo dee on the 4th of October, for L4O. This bill be was especially anxious to meet. He accordingly went to Mr J. Coombs and procured a cheque to take It up, which he paid into his account. This cheque was dishonored, whether because payment had been stopped by Messrs Coombs or because ther bad no funds to meet it does not appear. 0. Coomb?, and not J. Coomb?, managed the financial pait cf Messrs Coombs’ business. Apart, however, from this cheque Messrs Coombs advanced during the first four days of October, in cash and good«, to Anderson the net amount of L2B 15s Bd. On the Bth cf October Anderson went into the country and procured from customers the bills In question, amounting to L7olos. On the Bth he banded in the bills, Be does not think at the time he handed in tho bills he had any conversation, bnt afterwards, either on that day or the next, he saw O. Coombs and asked him for a cheque to pay Butler Bros. 0. Coombs then told Anderson that ho couldn’t advance the L4O or any more money unless he got bills to the amount of Ll4O, as he had been led to believe he would. Anderson states that he wanted especially to get Butler Bros’ bill paid, as it was the first account he had had with them, that he expected to get his bills paid as usual, and that he wouldn’t have given the customers* bills to Coombs if he had known he wouldn’t have got a cheque to pay Butler’s bill. The effect of the stoppage by Messrs Coombs of their advances to An demon was to prevent his carrying on business further, aud on the 29th of October he filed, the estimated value of his assets being L 260, and the amount of bis liabilities being LI ,048, of which L 420 was due to Messrs Osombs. Now there Is nothing here to show that Anderson in handing over the bills had any intention to preter Coombs, or that he handed them over In contemplation of bankruptcy. He handed them over in the hope and belief that Messrs Coombs would have done what they had done all along—viz., helped him to carry on. He handed them over especially in the hope and belief that ho would be enabled to pay Butler’s acceptance. _ The intention to pay Botlsr’s acceptance is inconsistent with the contemplation of bankruptcy. If Anderson had been contemplating bankruptcy, the payment of Butler’s bill would have been a fraudulent preference. What possible motive can he attributed to him for wishing to prefer Butler? I think Anderson’s own statement, which is treated as true by all parties, disposes of tho contention that he d‘d what he did with a view of giving a preference to Messrs Coombs. It is char from the language of the Act that the mere making a preferential < aymont is not a fraudulent preference (cx pa lie Taylor in re f; 'ld-mid, 18 Q. 8., D. v, 295, i "d re Mil'.v cx parte Official Receiver, 53 T..T., 235—371). Tho Actospress’y provides that tho payment must be made with a view of giving the ; articular creditor a preference. It may be that in order to vitiate the transaction it is not necessity to show that the payment was made with the sole view of giving the creditor a preference, or even that such was the dominant tie*" of the debtor. If, however, the language of the Act has any meaning at all, it ought, 1 think, where it is sought uuder this section to impeach a payment made by a debtor, to appear distinctly from the evidence, without resorting to strained inferences or too subtle argumentation, that the debtor must have made the payment with the view, amongst other thing?, of preferring his creditor. No sufficient proof of this has been given here. Motion dismissed.

Westport Coal Company v. The Queen. His Honor gave judgment as follows:

The question is whether certain steel coal tubs come under the head of mining machinery, as specified in schedule B to the Customs Duties Act, 1888, and are thus exempt from duty. The case states that these tubs are patent steel coal tubs, fitted with cast steel wheels fast on steel axles, and are fitted with steel pedestals and best English oak buffers complete, for 24in gauge of rails. These tubs were ordered for the purpose, and are used only for carrying coal from the mine of the plaintiffs to the railway trucks by an endless wire rope, to which they are attached by a chain. The tubs, by means of this rope and attachment, ave drawn the mine loaded by a stationary ongute, which

delves a pulley, by which the rope is set in motion, Tho engine, rope, tuba, and chains constitute a system of Inulago known as the end!e : s npo svxtem. The evidence showed that these tub"i were specially made, and were only used for mining purposes; the trucks and waggon:) u«ed by contractors and others aboveground either opening at tho side or end or the body tipping over, while the frame remains on the rail- 1 , to nnble the contents to be discharged. These tubs are fixed to their frames, and are discharged by being turned upside down, ft ante and all, by a contrivance known as a tippler. Tho evidence shows that the tubs are filled at tho underground working face by t e miners then showed by tho men a short distance- and connected with the cedless rope. They a - o then hauled,by me ms of .he ropo to the surface along a railway of 2lia gauge. They arc then detached from the rope, pushed to the tippler, and emptied, and wlr n imply pushed hack and connected with the tope, and drawn bv it into tho mine to be refilled. It was proved that tubs of some kind, either of steel or wood, were articles of prime nece.-s ; ty for raining purposes. U seems to me that these tubs are within both tho letter and the spirit of tho exemption. The exemption, of course, accordirg to the admitted rule, should rectivo a liberal obstruction. Even without ipecially applying spy such construction, I should have thought that, looking at (he above facts, those tubs, in ordinary language, would properly be said to form an fiat gral part of the machinery commonly used in mines, and would so corao within tho exemption. They arc as much part of tho mediani m for drawing sol d matter from the mine as the S;ou and valves of a mining pump are for ing water from it. The tho Words “machine” and “machinery” in the numerous dictionaries to which I have hern referred quite justify this c--instruction. Judgment for the p aintiff ■*, as agreed by tho special ease. Fitzgerald v. Ewivt,— His Honor gave judgment as follows ; Section 103 of the Counties Ac L , 1883, authorises the Council to vote such reasonable suras as it shall deem sufficient to defray the actual travelling expenses only of council’ors coming from a distance exceeding three miles to attend the meetings of the Council. By the earlier Act of 1873 a like power to vote travelling •xpensts existed, but tho words “actual ” and “ only ” did not occur in the earlier Act. I see no reason why a oounly council should not adopt the o-u-ao taken by tho Maniototo County Oounc 1. It seems to me that to say that tho Council has power to vote such sums is equivalent to saying it may pay them ; and that the section may bo read as if the word “ pay ” had b;en inserted in lieu of the word “vote,” The Council may, therefore, pay its members such reasonable sums as it considers sufficient to defray their expenses. If tho Council considers a fixed sum per mile sufficient, I fee nothing in Iho Act to prevent them fixing and paying such a sum. This construction is strengthened by tho provision of section IC;>—that the Council may vote the actual travelling expenses of the •halrman. Tbli puts upon tho Council the duty of ascertaining exactly what tbs chairman’s travelling ex, cues are before paying them. I should think that the earliot section was intentionally framed to enable county councils to do what this Council has done, and to avoid tho unseemly disco-alone which would inevitably take place if the reasonableness of every item of the travelling expenses of each member had to ho discussed by the Council. As has been shown, the language of the section d ftsrs pointedly not enly from the language of section 100, but alio from tho language of sections in other Acte, by which provision is made for tho allowance of travelling expenses cf members of public bodies, Tho answer, therefore, to the fast, second, and third questions will bo in the affirmative, to tho fourth in tho negative.

SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL SITTINGS. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) w’j.vun.i. V. CALUJS. A suit to tost the validity of the will of the late John Gallic. Mr J. F. M. Fraser for plaintiff; Mr F. R. Chapman for defendant. Tho further hearing of this caso was resumed at 11 n.m. Mr Fraser said he understood his friend had some application to make. Mr Chapman said that since the matter was last before Hia Honor evidence had come to defendant’s knowledge which His Honor would be asked to admit now. It was tho evidence of two gentlemen who separately had been brought into this action.

On the application of Mr Fraser, Mis Honor directed that the persons referred to should temporarily retire. Mr Chapman continual that tho gentlemen he referred to, who had just withdrawn, were Mr Murray, of Clarksville, and Mr Stevenson, who lived in Dunedin. He (Mr Chapman) had heard, in the first place, that Mr Stevenson had known Gallie, but was under tho impression that he had only known him before his illness. It was only since tho case was liut before the Court that it had been learned that Mr Stevenson’s evidence was of value. In the case of Mr Murray, it had been heard by accident that he knew Gallie. He was at once written to, and his answer was such as to induce him (Mr Chapman) to ask Mr Murray to come to town. He did so, end made such a statement as to make it incumbent upon counsel to ask His Honor to receive his evidence. Mr Fraser objected to tho admission of the evidence on the ground that the application was unusual and the practice objectionable. These witnesses could have been obtained with reasonable diligence, He efiubl furnish His Honor with tho names of twenty-five witnesses, and the only reason ho was not justified in calling them was that they would douhlebank his ease. Material witnesses in this case that had been subpi»naed by tho other side—tho Bunhurya, Wingfields, and Woodlands—had not been called ; but the case had been skimmed, tho cream of the evidence taken, and these witnesses had turned up six weeks after the ease had been closed, and when it had been threshed out in every household in Dunedin, Mr Chapman, in reply to His Honor, stated tho effect of tho evidence he proposed to call.

His Honor, in deciding the question, said ; I think, Mr Fraser, that looking at the peculiar circumstances I ought not to exclude this evidence. There has been delay in this case in bringing the action, which is certainly not the fault ot Mr Chapman’s clients. The action is not brought till ten years after it might have been brought.—(Mr Fraser: They did not prove the will.) There was no necessity to prove the will in the first instance, because the only property the man had was real property, and probate of will in those days did not affect real property. Tie action has not been brought till pretty nearly ten years after the death of the testator. That, of course, puts the other side to tremendous difficulties in the way of collecting evidence. The difficulty is a great deal greater for Mr Chapman’s clients to get the necessary evidence than it is for the other side ; because, owing to the peculiar form of the proceedings, Mr Chap, man’s clients have to prove an affirmative, which is, of course, a much more difficult thing to do than simply to leave the burden of proof on tho othe r side. lam satisfied that every latitude, so far as admitting fresh evidence is concerned, should he given to the Gallies. In respect to the other side, it is reasonable tosuppose that before commencing proceedings at all they would have their case complete ; and it does not follow that because fresh evidence is admitted on the one side it must be admitted on the other, In the present case, unless the evidence seemed to mo to ho fairly material and the evidence of irdepende’t witnesses, I should certainly not admit it; but looking at the fact that these witnesses are really strangers to the Gallic family and have no nterest in tho case, and as Mr Chapman has stated that the evidence is material, I do not think I ought to exclude it. Evidence admitted.

The question as to whether Mr Davie ought to have been allowed to give evidence of what Mr Hepburn had said to him after his interview with Mr Gallic about an extension of the lease was again argued at some length, and His Honor decided that the evidence was inadmissible. James Stevenson deposed that he used to be a dairy farmer, but now^ lived in Royal terrace, Dunedin. His business as a dairy farmer was carried on at the North Taieri, and was carried on up to 1871. He began when ho came to the colony, forty years ago. In 1862 he was living at Taierl, He knew the late John Gallie, and grazed cattle for him in 1862. Those cattle were sold by Wright, Robinson, and Co., or Wright, Stephenson now. Mr Stephenson was their auctioneer then. Witness remembered the cattle being' removed from his farm. It took place on the 18th March, That was the date when the cattle were sold and removed. Witness had nothing more to do with Gallie in business. They fasd

not been on particularly Intimate terms, though witness had known Gallie all along from the early days. Witness did not see Gallic at the time of the sale. He saw him first after the sale of the cattle in March, IS7I. Ho fixed the date by its being the date on which he came to reside in Dunedin —nine years after the sale. Witness did not moap to say he saw Gallic in March, 1871; it was between that date and April, 1874, that he saw him. _ It might have been shortly after March, 1871 ; witness could not fix tho date. It was in Lower Rattray street that witness met Gallie. It was by accident. They recognised each other at once. Gallie then charged witness with selling the cattle too cheap. Gallic was tho first to commence to talk about the cattle. Witness replied that he had nothing to do with it, but, at the same time, they were sold too cheap. Witness pointed out, however, that they were wild cattle. Gallie got angry and his speech became thick. Witness walked away, and never saw him again. To Mr Fraser: Witness had heard that Gallic was unwell in those days when tho cattle wore sold—he heard that afterwards. He had had tho transaction with Gallie in his memory all along, but could not speak of the matter until he found his back giving tho dates. Witness went to Mr Chapman’s office and volunteered to give evidence. The reason why he did not offer to give evidence on-the other side was .because he could say nothing in Winmill’a favor. Witness did not see anything strango in Gallie becoming angry about the sale of tho cattle. Witness would swear that ho did not see Gallic from the time of the sale until lie (witness) came to reside in Dunedin. To the beet of his belief tho conversation referred to did not taka place at an earlier date.

Robert Murray, farmer, said he had been living in the Tokomairiro district for about thirty years. He was at one time a member of the Provincial Council, and occasionally came to town. He knew John Gallie in 1819, but did not see much of him during the ten years after his retiring from business, In the summer of 1872—at the time the Port Chalmers dock was just handed over by the contractors—witness stayed in Dunedin over a Sunday, aud to his astonishment mot Gallie down by Polichet Bay. Witness’s astonishment was aroused because he had heard that Gallic was laid up. Gallie crossed over tho road to him, and greeted him as an old friend. Witness had not called to Gallie, nor signalled to him. Gallie recognised him at once, and asked after his welfare and about old settlers in the district. Gallie invited witness to go to his house. Witness did so, aud spent two hours there, talking with Mr and Mrs Gallic. The conversation was very general. Gillie said that he had been to Dr Stuart’s church that morning, and made the remark that the doctor was a fine man. He asked after the welfare cf the Frasers, the Smiths, of Greenfield, and tho Datbies, families that he had known, hut who had since settled in witness’s district.

Mr Chapman ; Was there anything in his conversation, his manner, or anything that passed between you and him to suggest anything to you as to the state of nis mind and intellect ?

Witness : Not the slightest. Until I read the evidence in the papers I was never aware that bo was in the asylum or wanting in intellect. I was astonished when I read so much of it. There was nothing to suggest that ho was out of hia mind, lie was prostrate, and was not the strong able man he used to be, and his speech was affected—that was all.

Witness (continuing) said that he could follow everything <J-allie said, and he appeared to understand all that witness said. Witness thought a stranger would have had some difficulty in following what Gallic said.

To Mr Fraser : When Gillie crossed tho street he took witness by both hands and shook them warmly. He was like a man who had had a shock of some sort. It was not impossible that witness himself first spoke of tho old friends by name, but ho believed it was Gallic who did so.

At this stage the luncheon adjournment was taken.

Air Fraser proceeded to address the Court, premising th.it he intended to submit an analysis of the facts of the case to the btst of his ability, and then quote authorities ia support of the line of argument that he would adopt. He would try to cut hia address as short as possible, but there was the evidence of the large number of witnesses that had been examined, and it must take him considerable time to analyse it. But first he would submit the proposition than when once a testator is show n to suffer under a mental derangement the burden of proof attaches to the party propounding the will—-which in the present erse was his learned friend’s party. Counsel proceeded to contrast the early and later histories of the deceased Gallie as was to be gathered from tho evidence, and said that the evidence as to the earlier stage was that Gallie was then a man who was strong, of active habits, and of a close disposition—in fact, he might bs said to bo greedy in regard to money, and niggardly towards even his wife. Ha was a man who was jealous of his rights, or hia imaginary rights, to almost tho verge of eccentricity, and ho was a man who was fond of litigation—ho actually courted it, indeed. He was in the early days, then, evidently a man of more than ordinary intelligence. But he was a man who could always “take a glass,” and it appeared that he gradually gave way to drink. With that picture of Gallio’s earlier days in Dunedin, when ho was a man in the prime of life—being about forty-four years of age—let them contrast tho picture of him as depicted in later days : ho had become a broken-down man, his chronic difficulty of speech had increased, and almost tho whole of his mental faculties had disappeared. Indeed, hia whole mode of life, of thought, and of temperament bad changed, and no more striking evidence as to his changed condition was given than was contained in his sufferance of the presence of the man George Hartley Walker in tho midst of his family. The evidence went to show that Gallie was almost an eye-witness to his wife’s adultery with Walker, yet ho had come to such a condition of mind that he had lost all power of resentm nt and remained perfectly passive in his own house. There could be no doubt that Gallie had become actually reduced to a state of absolute childishness, or imbecility, or dementia—whatever they pleased to call it. As to the comparative value of the family evidence, counsel took it that tho witnesses on behalf of Mrs Gallie might fairly be termed biassed witnesses. Coming to the evidence of Mrs Gallie, counsel would frankly confess that she had the best of him when ho had her under examination—on not one single point did she contradict herself. Time after time ho led her up to tho brink of an incriminating answer, and saw that answer actually quivering on her lips—when she would suddenly subside into the subterfuge “I don't remember.” However, counsel knew that the evidence of his own witnesses discredited Mrs Gallic, and indeed proved her to he an absolutely discreditable witness. The other witnesses on her side all followed on tho same line, but he would deal with their evidence in duo course, and at the outset ho would say that ho proposed in commenting on tho evidence to avoid the use of strong comment, which he felt would not assist his case. Counsel then proceeded to deal in extenso with the evidence, stating that he had, for the purpose of convenience, arranged tho evidence under successive heads, and that the first head that he had to take in hand was the position of George Hartley Walker in connection with the case, [Left sitting.]

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

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

Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default in the following cases : ‘ Otago Daily Times ’ Co. v. W. M'Hardy (Queenstown), claim, Ll ss, account due ; same v. J. Goodman (Christchurch), Ll ss,

Otago Harbor Board v. M, Joel.—ln this previously-heardcase His Worship now gave judgment as follows

I think the notification of the intention to amend bylaw 225 is not sufficient. The language and sense of section 18 of the Harbors Act Amendment Act, 1883, is very clear. Before that provision was made, jt was hecestary in a

notification of tho intention to adopt, a by-law to publish the proposed by-law in full. Tho amendment provides that it shall not to necessary to do so, and proceeds to provide other things that should he done. The amendment' is not an alternative, nor does it prohibit the publishing in full, although that is more than is required; but it is imperative that the notification should state that the proposed by-'aws have been priuted, and are open to the public inspection at tho office of the Board. It is true that the notification embodies the proposed by-laws, and thercfo'O con* ta’ns all the information it would have been necessary to give in a more circuitous way, but it is not given in the way the statute d rcct , and theicfore is not sufficient. But if that point is nit fata', there is another ground upon which plaintiff cannot recover. Tho by law acknowledged by the Mmist-.r is tint purported to have boon passed on the 28th tf March, but to Board bad a'ready exercised its power on tho sth of March. It then passed the amendment of tho ty-law, fixed a day for it to come into force, and on tho same day statutory notice was given in the Evening Star that the by-law was amended, and that it was fixed to come into operation on the I3th of March. The Board bad done all that it proposed to dr by the notification of tho 19th of February, and if by any reason it was desirable to proceed afresh, I think it would be necessary to commence again by publishing notice and calling a special meeting. This was not done, and therefore I think the by-law of tao 28th March is invalid, aud neither that of the 28th February nor stb March has been acknowledged as sent to the Minister. Judgment for defendant, with costs, including costs allowed to defendant on the adjournment asked for by the plaintiff. John Ross v. the Mount Hyde Gold Mining Company.—Claim, L 23 3s 9J, for carting quartz and other work. Mr Pratt appeared for plaintiff; Mr White for defendant.—This partly-heard case was resumed, and after further evidence had been taken His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for L 23 19s, with costs. CITY POLICE COURT. (BeforeMrJ. Elmer, J.P.) Drunkenness.—For this offence Mary Smith alias Polly Baker (eight previous convictions) was fine! 10s, in default twentyfour hours’ imprisonment. Disorderly Behaviour, -—Annie Dallis (four previous convictions) was charged with behaving in such a manner whereby a breach of the peace was occasioned. Mr Cook appeared for accused.—Constable Gough said that last night accused was quarrelling with another woman in the Octagon, creating a great disturbance. Accused was fined 10s, in default forty-eight hours’imprisonment.

Threaten iso Lasotjaok —Nellie Wilson was charged by Lena Smith with using abusive and threatening language. Mr R L. Stanford appeared for complainant; Mr D. Macdonald for defendant. —Complainant’s evidence went to show that she was walking up Walker street with her sister, when defendant called out to her, using abusive language.—Mrs Wong Sing eaid she accompanied complainant up Walker street on the night in question, when defendant accosted them, and began abusing witness’s companion. Defendant used very bad language, calling complainant a lot of bad names.—Mr Macdonald denied that defendant was the aggressor, or that she used the language mentioned.— Liazie Phillips said that complainant was in the habit of accosting her in the street and threatening to fight her. She was present at the time when defendant was alleged to have used bad language, and did not hear her companion say the words mentioned.—Defendant also gave evidence, after which she was fined LI, in default one week’s imprisonment. Lascest.— Elhabtth Smyth was charged with feloniously stealing one tin of lollies, valued at Os, the property of Archibald Miller, at Dunedin, on the 11th inst. Mr Cook appeared for accused, and admitted the larceny of the lollies, but pleaded, in extenuation, that accused was drunk at the time, and it was after baying some articles from the ehop that she stole the lollies. There had been no previous convictions against accused for larceny.— A oensed^ was fined L2, in default fourteen days’ imprisonment.

(Mr T. M. Wilkinson here took a goat on

the bench.)

A Foni. Chimket. —For allowing his chimney to catch flro, John Hannan was fined 2* 6J, without costs. ILT.EOAr.Ly Removing Sou. Georye Moran was charged, on tho information of J. Morrison, Town Bell ranger, with illegally removisg soil from tho Town Bolt, without first obtaining tho permission of the City Council. Complainant said that several loads of soil had been taken from tho Belt, leaving large holes which caused considerable trouble fn filling up. The land had been surveyed, and the City Surveyor had found that the soil had been taken from the Town Belt, near the boundary line.—Defendant was fined 10s, withcosts; one month allowed in which to pay the fine.

By taw Cases— Christian Hanson was fined 2s 6d (without costs) for allowing a cow to war.der at largo.— Richard Howard was fined iis (with costs) for hawking meat at South Dunedin without first obtaining a license.

OnscßSE Language.— Ltz it Phillips was charged by Lena Smith with using abusive and threatening language. Mr Stanford for complainant,* MrD, Macdonald for defendant.—The evidence tendered was similar to that given in the case against Nellie Wilson, defendant being present and participating fn the squabble which ensued between the other parties, Lena Smith was charged with using obscene language to Nellie Wilson.—This case was simply a continuation of the previously-heard cases, the parties being defended by the same counsel.—Evidence having been taken, the Bench dismissed both cases.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18890612.2.21

Bibliographic details

THE COURTS.—TO-DAY., Evening Star, Issue 7931, 12 June 1889

Word Count
5,851

THE COURTS.—TO-DAY. Evening Star, Issue 7931, 12 June 1889

Working