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-CIVIL SITTINGS,

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.)

Alexander Brown v. Charles Samson and Alfred Lee Smith. Motion for specific relief and for damages. Mr W. D. Stewart and Mr Woodhouae for the plaintiff ; Sir R. Stout and Mr Chapman for defendants.

The statement of claim sets forth that in July, 1880, the plaintiff leased to Charles Samson the mines and seams of coal situate on section 60, block 7, East Taieri district, near Abbot Creek, and that Samson subsequently re-leased the property to the defendant Smith, and that a true statement of accounts has not of late years been supplied to the plaintiff, showing the royalty to which he is entitled under agreement of lease. The plaintiff therefore prays:—(l) For an account showing the quantity of coal raised from the mine since October 11, 1887, up to the taking of such account, distinguishing large coal from small coal, and the respective times of raising the same; (2) an account showing all rents which may have become payable to plaintiff, and all moneys received by him ; (3) payment of all moneys which may be found to be due or owing to the plaintiff upon the taking of such account; (4) payment of all rents, taxes, or other moneys which the plaintiff has paid in respect to the defendants’ premises, and for which the defendants are liable; (5) L4OO damages for breach of the covenants of the said lease ; (6) possession of the premises under the proviso for reentry ; (7) L2OO for use and occupation of the said premises from the date of taking the account; (8) that, if necessary, a receiver may be appointed ; (9) such further relief as the Court may direct. Mr Stewart, in opening the case, said that plaintiff had not been getting bis proper royalty from the defendants. That had especially been the case since 1885 and 1886. Accounts had been furnished which the plaintiff contends bad been grossly misleading and incorrect. It was not till March last that Mr Brown became aware of the system being carried on at the mine by which he was being deprived of a considerable amount of royalty. From the affidavits filed it would appear that the defendants had leased the mine to Mr Allen, who paid 6d per ton royalty, while the Equitable Investment Company also appeared to got 3d per ton royalty. Under the original lease Mr Brown was to get Is 6d royalty for large coal—coal that would not go through the riddle—and 9d for small coal. There was no stipulation for any particular kind of coal being exempt from royalty, though the plaintiff agreed not to charge royalty for dross. About 1882 or 1883 the plaintiff agreed to an arrangement of this sort: that instead of paying Is 6d royalty for large coal, and 9d for small coal, the defendant should pay a uniform rate of 13|d on all coal. But the effect of this arrangement had been to deprive the plaintiff of his royalty on small coal—that was to say, the plaintiff contended that the deiendant now paid him for what he used to pay la 6d, and on the small coal, for which 9d had been previously paid, the plaintiff got nothing. Plaintiff's income from the mine during the first year was about L7OO for royally ; during the last two years it had not exceeded LIOO. If the defendant’s contention were correct he could convert all coal into dross, and deprive the plaintiff of all royalty. The plaintiff also complained that the mine had been allowed to get into a dangerous state — the ground had subsided in large areas, and was practically useless. Then there was a claim for local taxes which the defendant had refused to pay, and which the plaintiff consequently had had to meet. The plaintiffs contention was that whatever coal had gone away from the mine for marketable purposes was subject to royalty. [Left sitting.] RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. (Before Messrs D. Wishart and J, T, Ross, Justices.) R. Cadzow v. William Roberts,—Claim, L 6 6s, on a judgment summons. Mr Macdonald appeared for the plaintiff.—The defendant, who is a horse dealer at South Dunedin, did not appear, and an order was made for the payment of the debt by the 31st inst., in default seven days’imprisonment. Thomas Myers v. Benjamin Watson.— Claim, LI Is 3d, on a judgment summons. —After hearing the evidence of the defendant, who is a laborer at Green Island, the Bench considered that ability to pay was established, and made an order for payment of the debt by two monthly instalments, in default seven days’ imprisonment. Robert Rae v. James Cotton.—Claim, L 3 18s 6d, for meat supplied.—Mr Thornton appeared for the plaintiff, for whom judgment was given by default for the amount claimed, with costs, CITY POLICE COURT. (BeforeE. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness.— Two first offenders were respectively convicted and discharged, and fined ss, in default twenty-four hours’ imprisonment. Obscene Language. —Bridget Lambert (nineteen previous convictions), charged with this offence, pleaded guilty, and as she had been previously sent to gaol on similar charges, was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment with hard labor. Struck Out. —The cases of Williams v. Young , Williams v. Crawford, and Williams v. M'L'eod were struck out, neither party appearing. Systematic Larceny,— Annie Flynn (four previous convictions) was charged with stealing, on the 16th inst., two dresses, valued at Bs, and one can of milk, the property of Henry Goldsmith. Accused was also charged with stealing, on the 14th inst., a morning wrapper and cap, valued at 7s, the property of James Taine; and, on the same date, two flannels, two shirts, two pairs of stockings, valued at 15a, the property of Ann Stewart. Accused pleaded guilty. Chief-detective Henderson asked for a remand until Tuesday, as accused had only been arrested last evening, and he bad been unable to work up the case.—His Worship thought a remand unnecessary, as accused had pleaded guilty to all the charges.—Chief-detective Henderson said that numerous thefts from clothes lines had taken place of late, and. accused had; admitted that she had taken several of the articles which were missed. Accused had no place of abode, and was in the habit of sleeping in the back yards of persons, and in the morning stealing anything that was lying about. She had been committed four times for drunkenness, but had never been sentenced for larceny. There were numerous other charges against accused, who seemed to have taken a large number of articles.— She was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, with hard labor on each charge; sentences to run concurrently. Receiving Stolen Property. Alice Macnamara was charged with receiving goods knowing them to be stolen), and which were the property of Sophia Livingstone.— Accused pleaded not guilty, and on the application of Chief-detective Henderson the case was remanded until to-morrow.

A Destitute Child. — James M'Bain, proved to be a child in destitute circumstances, was committed to the Industrial School, to be brought up in the Presbyterian faith. His mother was given a bad character by the police, who said she was totally unfit to take charge of the child. Robbery by a Domestic.— Mary Bitchie (16) was charged with stealing, on or about the 10th inst., various articles of clothing valued at L2 10s, the property of James

Ward, She was further charged with stealing a sovereign on August 30, the property of James Ward. Mr J. F, M. Fraser defended, and said accused pleaded guilty. —Sergeant Macdonnell said that accused was in service at complainant’s house, and stole the articles, stating subsequently that she had taken the money. It seemed that she had given all the articles of clothing to another girl, because she told her to do so. Accused derived no benefit from the theft, and seemed to have committed it at the instigation of the other girl. In answer to Mr Fraser, the sergeant added that accused’s parents were highly respectable, and accused seemed to have given everything away except the sovereign. —Mr Fraser asked His Worship to deal leniently with accused by reason of her being led away by another girl, in whose hands she was but a tool.—Mr Gallaway said that, as he appeared for the other girl, he objected to Mr Fraser making any remarks about his client, because that would be unfair.— Mr Fraser said he simply stated what he believed to bo facts; and what was more, he was able to prove_ that the prosecutor was asked to perjure himself so as to allow the case to be stifled.— Mr Gallaway objected to his learned friend making such statements. If anything had been done in connection with the stifling of the case he (Mr Gallaway) was not to blame, because he had done all that was necessary in connection with it.—His Worship said he would not give any decision until the other case had been heard. That could now be proceeded with. Margaret M'Culcheon (seventeen years) was then charged with receiving the articles mentioned above, knowing them to be stolen. Mr Gallaway defended. Sergeant Macdonnell called Mary Ritchie, who said that she was at Mr Ward’s for about three months. While she was there accused called to see her on several occasions, and asked her if she could get her some things, as she had nothing to wear. Witness said she would try, and a day or two later gave accused several articles of clothing, stating that they belonged to Mr Ward, Accused said she would not let anyone see them, and on several occasions received things from witness, the articles being handed over the fence to accused, who always said she would not let anyone see them. Accused received several pairs of boots, an umbrella, several pairs of gloves, and numerous other articles. She asked witness if there was any articles of jewellery, and was answered in the affirmative. Accused then told witness to take them, and said they would go to town on Saturday evening and pawn them. Accused said she would call at Mrs Ward’s and ask her to let witness away that night. On the Wednesday evening witness accompanied accused to town, but before leaving she, at accused’s suggestion, stole a sovereign, which they changed in town. Witness kept 3s 6d, and accgsed got the rest. To Mr Gallaway ; The name of the Chinaman with whom witness had been running an account for lollies and things was Wong Lee. The account had been running for over a year, but had never exceeded Bs. At this time she owed him 3s 6d, which he took when he changed the sovereign. She met accused by accident, but did not tell her that she had any money. She did not give accused the money, because she was not asked for it then, but she gave it to her on the following Saturday.—Sergeant Macdonnell said that when charged with receiving the articles accused said she bought them from Ritchie, but she had _ not paid for them. At witness’s direction, she brought several of the articles which were stolen from Ward’s house.— —Mary Luscombe stated that accused, when questioned by the sergeant, said that she did not know the articles were stolen. Slie did not appear to wish to hide anything from the sergeant. She was a very truthful girl, and could be trusted.—Accused said she never called frequently at Mrs Ward’s house; she only called there three times. The girl Ritchie offered to sell several articles to her, and she consented to take them, but said she could not pay for them at present.—Ellen Cuthill, superintendent of a hosiery factory, said accused was, so far as witness knew, upright, straightforward, and trustworthy. Evidence was also given by Robert White and Mary Ritchie (recalled). His Worship said that the tale of the girl Ritchie was the more probable of the two, and the evidence adduced showed that the girl M'Cutcheon was a very bad girl, indeed. He would order the case to stand over until the Probation Officer had reported. No bail would be allowed in the case of M'Cutcheon, who was removed crying bitterly.—Mr Fraser said that the girl Ritchie was a simple girl, and appeared to have been led away by M'Cutcheon. The case was a most extraordinary one, as Ritchie had never been allowed out much, and had committed these larcenies simply to oblige her companion, —Regarding the girl Ritchie, His Worship thought that a series of larcenies had been committed by accused, who was intelligent enough to understand what she was doing. The case would be remanded until a report was received from the Probation Officer. No bail would be allowed.

Petty Labceny. Annie Flynn was charged with stealing, on or about the Ist October, one tablecloth, two aprons, one curtain, two handkerchiefs, and a towel, valued at 10s, the property of Sophia Livingstone. Chief-detective Henderson asked for a remand until to-morrow, which was granted.

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/ESD18891017.2.13

Bibliographic details

THE COURTS—TO-DAY., Evening Star, Issue 8040, 17 October 1889

Word Count
2,162

THE COURTS—TO-DAY. Evening Star, Issue 8040, 17 October 1889

Working