THE COURTS—TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 8773, 14 March 1892, Page 2

THE COURTS—TO-DAY.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

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

John Munden v. Arnet Green (Cromwell). Claim, L 25 2s, grindery supplied. Mr Thornton (for plaintiff) said that defendant had paid LlO off his account, and subsequently forwarded a cheque for another LIO, but immediately afterwards forwarded the following letter, dated October 14“ I am sorry to say that I had to dishonor the cheque I sent you on the Bch, but the fact is wo have had a race meeting here on the 10th, and I was laid on to some good things by some people who pretend to be my friends and took their advice and plunged in rather far, and pretty well broke myself; at least I went so far that there were no funds to pay you with, but if you will kindly burn the cheque or return it and present the one enclosed you will find it all right. I hope you will take no offence at this action, although I know full well it is not the clean thing to do, but I thought by what I was told that I would make a little more money by investing on the totalisutor, seeing that my supposed friends were connected with the horse that I backed ; but it is the first time, I have paid dearly for it, and I will guarantee it will be the last. Trusting you will think none the worse of me for it, I remain faithfully jours, A, Gkeen His Worship ; What is defendant’s ago, do you know ? (Laughter )—Mr Thornton: I do not; one might suppose he is a child. Evidence being given by plaintiff, judgment was given by default for the amount claimed with costs. Picturesque Atlas Publishing Company v. John Mitchell (Port Chalmers). Claim, LS ss, the price of thirty-three parts of the 1 Picturesque Atlas of Australasia.’ Mr Sim for plaintiff company.—Judgment by default. CITY POLICE COURT. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.) Alleged False Weights.— On the case of Hanson (inspector of weights and measures) v, Adolph Frederick William. Lorie being called, Mr Solomon, who appeared with Mr Sim for the defendant, applied for a rehearing of the case on the following grounds (1) That the evidence of the witness William Markham, to the effect that ho adjusted the large Avery weighing machine on the 10th February, 1892, and that it was impossible for such machine to get into the incorrect state in which the inspector found it unless it had been tampered witb, has been found to be untrue, inasmuch as he could now prove by the evidence of experts that it was quite impossible for the said machine to have been adjusted for months; (2) that since the previous hearing he had discovered evidence which would prove that shortly before the day on which the weighing machine referred to in the information was seized by the inspector it was weighing correctly ; (3) that since the previous hearing he had discovered evidence tending to show that the said weighing machine was maliciously tampered with by a person not in his employ; (4) that due weight was not given to tho evidence of the witnesses called for the defence. In speaking in support of his application, Mr Solomon said he did not propose to rely on paragraph 3 of the application. He abandoned it because, although they had evidence in their possession to support the charge, they had not the legal proof. So far as the application was concerned, it was of the most extreme importance to Mr Lorie. The mere matter of fining was comparatively trifling compared with the importance and gravity of the case from a commercial point of view. The effect of His Worship’s judgment, couched in the language in which it was couched, practically meant financial ruin to Mr Lorie unless it was reversed, and he thought he could satisfy His Worship that, assuming the actual judgment were correct, His Worship had made a mistake in his finding on the subject, and that he had not given due weight to some of the evidence Then other evidence would be laid before His Worship that would materially alter His Worship’s view of the matter. He assumed His Worship had endeavored to deal fairly with the matter, and if Hie Worship saw that an injustice had been done to a citizen, he wonld be the first person to take it away, if possible. His Worship found in the first place that in order to complete the offence all that one had to find was that a false machine was found in the possession of the defendant. In the judgment, His Worship said there need bo no moral wrong, and he went further, aud expressed the opinion that there had been moral wrong in this case. -»His Worship; And there is evidence to support that view.—Mr Solomon, continuing, said that to put the matter plainly His Worship’s finding amounted to this: that the scale was in Mr Lorie’s possession, that it was incorrect and false, that it was false to his knowledge, and that there were other false scales in his possession, There was a difficulty in the case, because the language of the English Act and the New Zealand Act were different, the latter using a word which was not used in the English Act, and upon which His Worship had based his opinion. The English Act said, th c scale must ho unjust, and the New Zealand Act said it mutt he false or imper feet. Since the case was heard he had, along with the defendant, consulted with perei lh versed in these matters, and they had proved to them that it was physically imposMrflt! to get such scales as these, used ia the ordinary way of commerce, to work accurately. Id support of that, they had examined the scales in Dunedin of fourty-four persons dealing in the largest way of business, all of whom were beyond reproach. Of that number only eighteen weighed correctly, and there was a variation in twenty-six of them. One of the scales was sealed np and was not interfered with by anybody, and in forty-eight hours it varied to the extent of half a pound. Before

» person could be convicted Hie Woriblp unit be eekiefied that the eoele wu need, not momentarily, bnt ordinarily, and generally In a falae condition) ana if the defend ante could satisfy Bis Worehip—and they could do there donld be such a variation in the scale* in the dottrae. ofhalf $ day that ftonid adbonnt tor the Ration op, a barttotolar aa)r, HU, Worship vvould see that the language used in the judgment was more rigorous than was required, If they could show His Worship that this was a mere accidental omission, bpyond.the control of Mr Lorie, His Worship wqjuld come to the conclusion that no fine should be imposed at ell, . There was another question which had a very material bearing on the language Used. They hqd had the books examined by SB accountant (Mr Barr, of Leary and Barr), and it was shown that Mr Lorie could pot possibly get any benefit from the iisf of these scales, He was the mere agent, and whatever weights came to him were credited to hU customers, and the weights that went out were also credited to them. If His Worship had all the evidence before him that could be produced ho would be compelled to say that Mr Lorie was Innocent, because there was complete absence of motive.—His Worship: And absence of negligence? —> Mr Solomon t Yes. Continuing, he said that although the scale might be incorrect it could qot be said tp be imperfect, because it had inherent in it all this materials for which a scale could correctly weigh. A scale that was imperfect was one that oonld not weigh, The scale in question, however, was not false. His Worship had remarked that if he had come to the conclusion that Mr Lorie had need these scales for the purpose of defrauding people, the fine would have been greater, and therefore he fined Mr Lorie for being negligent, bnt negligence was not an offence against the New Zealand law, although it was against the English law, —Mr Haggitt said his friend had abandoned the only reason that was material, and be had not spoken on the other* reasons, confining himself tb an attempt to prove that His Worship’s judgment was wrong on a point of law, which was not one of the reasons for the application at all. His Worship had been asked to find a difference between “false and imperfect ’ and “incorrect or otherwise unjust”—the words of the English Act. He (Mr Haggitt) said they were manifestly just the same thing. His friend asked: Can they be false without a guilty intention on tho part of the owner, and to that he (Mr Haggitt) would say of course they could. It was a matter of fact His Worship had to deal with. If the scale was false, then the case was proved, and defendant was subject to the penalties provided by the Act. There was no difference between a false and an incorrect scale, because they denoted a scale not true. It need not necessarily be an imperfect scale, although it was a false scale, but the Act raid “ falsa or incorrect,” so that if a scale was either false or incorrect, then the owner of tho scale brought himself within the terms of the Act. But in this case there was no doubt on the evidence that the scale was a false one, and that it was wilfully false too, and he submitted that the language in which His Worship’s judgment was couched was justified on tho evidence, and that His Worship would have been shirking the evidence had he not found, as the fao L s proved, that the circumstances were of a most suspicious nature in this case, to say the least of it. It was shown that the scales on which the goods were weighed in were in favor of the owner, and that the scales on which tho goods were weighed out were wrong also in his favor. His friend contended that this was a matter of importance to Mr Lorie, but it was a matter of importance to the public as well. As far as the question of a rehearing was concerned, he (learned counsel) did not care about it; but he said that a rehearing should not be granted except on proper grounds, and the grounds his learned friend had asked him to meet be hj« J not thought fit to touch on at all. He had merely attacked the judgment on tho matter on the ground that His Worship had not understood the meaning between “false and imperfect ” and “incorrect or otherwise unjust,”—Mr Solomon replied, after which His Worship said : The only point in the application for a rehearing which, in my opinion, would have shown sufficient ground for a rehearing is the point which has been abandoned. The defendant has had a fair trial, which he has skilfully defended, and I cannot see that I could have come to any other decision than I did. Application refused. —Mr Solomon said he had a farther application to make—viz,, that His Worship would increase the fine from L 3 to L 5 Is, to allow of an appeal.—His Worship raised a question as to what effect this would have on the conviction. —Mr Solomon said there was no fear of that point being raised on appeal.—His Worship : You must not bargain with me on that; it is a matter for arrangement between you and Mr Haegitt. His Worship added that he would alter it if Mr Haggitt took the responsibility, and Mr Haggitt making no response His Worship, after further consideration, said ho felt he had done justice in the case, and he did not see why he should interfere with the conviction as already recorded. {Before Messrs W. Elder and S. Elborn, J.P.s.) Drunkenness. Edward Martin was fined ss, in default twenty-four hours’imprisonment ; Margaret Goldstein was fined 20s, in default forty-eight hours’ imprisonment; and a first offender was convicted and discharged. A Rogue and a Vagabond.— Duncan Fraser pleaded guilty to being a rogue and a vagabond, for that ho had no visible lawful means of support. —Sergeant-ma j or Be vln gave the accused a very bad character. Since he came out of gaol he had done no work, and last week he was trying to impose on ladies in the suburbs. About ten o’clock on Saturday morning he-went to Mr Roberts’s house at Littlebourne and represented to Mrs Roberts that he wanted money to go to Mr Roberts’s station, Mrs Roberts told him to go away, but be refused, and the gardener had to force him from tho premises. Then he went to Mr Roberts’s office and demanded L2, which was refused to him. In the afternoon he again went to Mr Roberts’s bouse, and it was not until the police were sent for that he went away.—After evidence had been given, the aoonsed eaid he went to Mr Roberts’s house to see Mr Roberts, as he wanted to get work on Gladbrook Station. He afterwards went down to the office, where he was informed that Mr Roberts would be home at a certain time, and at that hour he again visited Mr Roberts’s house.— The Bench said they considered the case proved, and accused would be sent to gaol for six months.