THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 9915, 29 January 1896, Page 2

THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

MAGISTRATE'S COUBT.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., 8.M.)

Robert Bowie and Co. v. Edward J. ■ Cunningham and Mary Cunningham.— Claim, £3l 13s 0.1, on a dishonored promissory note* Mr Sim for plaintiffs—Judgment by default) with goats'. Maasejf, Harris Company v. Peter and Bridget Harrington (Ophir).— Claim, £63 4s 3d. Mr J. Cook appeared for plaintiffs and Mr W. C. Macgregor for defendants (instructed by Mr Gilkison). The claim was for possession of a reaper and binder and a mower, or for £SB 4* 5d if possession could not be had, and £5 damages for wrongful detention. Plaintiffs claimed under a bill of sale from J. C. and Bartly Harrington. Defendants bought at a sheriffs sale, and plaintiffs said that what was bought —in fact all that could be sold—was the equity of redemption. These were the questions to be determined by the magistrate. Mr Macgregor, however, applied for a change of venue to Ophir, on the ground that the cause of action arose there.—Mr Cook said the law was clear that unless it could be shown that the preponderance of convenience was greatly in favor of removing a case the Court would not order the removal. In this case the bill of sale under which plaintiffs' title arose was registered in Dunedin, and it was for breach to deliver that plaintiffs claimed. Defendants could jf they wished have their evidence taken at Ophir. On the question of convenience it might also bo urged that the Court at Ophir sat only once a month, and the loss of a Bcason'a cutting meant a difference, of about 25 per cent, in the value of the machines.— His Worship agreed with Mr Macgregor that the r?al cause of action was the wrongful detention of the goods, and that it took place at Ophir. An order would be made removing the case to Ophir, one guinea being allowed to defendants.

Thomson v. Thomas and Edward Hitchcock,—This case was resumed, Mr Sim appearing for plaintiff and Mr A. S. Adams for defendants. On behalf of the latter evidence was continued. George Springer, the first witness, said that he had had thirty years' experience of putting up and keeping billiard tables in order. He had seen a dismantled table at Watson's. The table generally was a bad one. The slates were of no value for billiard-table purposes; they were uneven in regard to thickness, and one of them that he tested had a lump in it, aud the cushions were fixed on in a very crude way. The slates of a billiard table should not require wedges; they should be as true underneath as on top. With the accessories and everything, he reckoned £SO would be a good price for this table. The other two he valued at £95 each. To Mr Sim : By accessories he meant a set of balls, the cues, and the markingboard.—James Smith, billiard-marker at Watson's, said that before the tables were shifted from the Octagon Thomson told him he thought the tables were going to Watson's. To Mr Sim :He preferred to play on the other tables; they played truer than the one in dispute.—Thomas Hitchcock, one of the defendants, said that on the 11th October Elward Hitchcock told defendant they had sold out to Haynes. Thomson said: "All right; I suppose I must go." Edward said they had to give up on the 17th, and they had to the end of the month to give up the top premises. On the 18th the three had another interview. Edward Hitchcock handed Thomson an account, and the latter said " That's all right." Thomson then said: "Can I have those" curtains, the bar fittings, aud some oilcloth ?" The reply was: " Yes ; you can have them and welcome." Thomson put them on his shoulder, said " Good-bye, old chaps," and went away smiliDg. There was no row. On the 19th the slate 3 for the tables defendants were making arrived, and Thomson lent a hand to carry them into position.—Edward Hitchcock, the other defendant, said that in August Williamson offered him the three tables for £l5O, saying at the time that Mrs Clark wanted £IOO for her two. Mrs Clark's offer was afterwards withdrawn ; she said herself that she wanted £llO. On the 19th August Williamson and Thomson said they were going to put their billiard table to auction that night. Witness agreed to buy the table for £SO. He gave Williamson a cheque for £4O. Williamson sold to Thomson and Thomson to witness. When witness gave Williamson the cheque for £4O he said he would bring him the money in the morning. On the 20lh witness took the money to Williamson, and the latter handed back the cheque. Witness did not think Thomson was present. He did not remember any conversation on the 19th. Witness paid the other £lO, which was to bo credited to Thomson on account of rent to Mrs Clark. At the interview on the 19th nothing was said about a bill of sale or a loin. Nothing was said on the 19th or 20th about a lease of the b Ward nom. Witness nevor said such a thing as that if Mrs Clark's tables could not be bought he (witness) would build two tables for Thomson. He never thought of building two tables for such a purpose. He commenced to build two tables after the end of August. When Mrs Clark's tables were offered at auction witness's bid of £75 was the highest. They were not sold. He never offered to lend Thomson money at 6or 8 per cent. Witness was examined at leDgth as to the conversation? spoken of by the previous witness, and, continuing, said that never at any time had Thomson com plained of being ejected or spoke of damages. Learned counsel addressei the Court, and His Worship intimated that he would reserve his decision. Thomas Martin v. Crawford and Watson. —Claim, £7 17s 7d, for damage alleged to be sustained in February, 1895, by defendant and his workmen erecting scaffdding and depositing building material on a dwelling, plaintiffs property, in High street, for the purpose of completing a contract for erecting a dwelling on an adjoining section. Mr Thornton for plaintiff, and Mr Fraser for defendant. TLcft sitthur.l CITY POLICE COUUT. (Before Mr L. Mendelsohn, J.P.) Diutnkknnkss.— Annie Pikt was convicted and discharged. Cattle Trespass.— William Oram Ball, for allowing two cows to wander in the West Harbor district, was fined 2s 6d.

Damaging a Lamp.—Seven boys, named Herbert Dixon, Valentine Dixon, John Davix, William Quinn, Edward Quinn, Reuben Clark, and Robert Wood*, were charged with, oq the 20th inst., at Dunedin, damaging a lamp, the property of the mayor, councillors, and citizens of the City of Dunedin.—All the boys pleaded not guilty except Herbert Dixon, who pleaded guilty. —Sergeant O'Neill said that on the 20th Constable Ward Was coming down Maclaggan street when he heard a smashing of glass. Further down the street he came on a number of boys, and he succeeded in catching one of them—Herbert Dixon—the others getting away. This boy at first denied that he broke the lamp, but afterwards he admitted that he was guilty. Three panes of the lamp were broken. The boys all admitted that they were throwing atoneß at the lamp, bub they said that Dixon's throwing did the most damage.—Evidence was given by Constable Ward and Herbert Dixon (who said he broke two of the panes, and that all the boys were throwing stones at the lamp).— Each of the boys was fjned Is and costs (4d), and the Bench cautioned them that if they came before the Court again they would be more severely dealt with. (Before Messrs L. Mendelsohn and J. L. Gillies, J. P. s.)

Stealing from a Dwelling. Daniel Munro alias Warren and John P. L. Donovan were charged with, on or about the 11th inst., at Dunedin, stealing from Watson's Hotel the sum of Is 4d (the property of John Watson), one gold chain (value £5 10a), one ten-dollar gold piece (value £2), and one five-dollar gold piece (value £1), the property of one Peter Grant. Mr Han lon appeared for the accused.—Chief-detective O'Connor said the two men were before the Court on the 21st inst., when they were charged with the offence as burglary, but that charge was dismissed, and the men were now charged with the Bame crime as one of stealing from a dwelling.—The facts of the case were folly stated when the accused were previously before the Court.—Evidence was given by John Watson, James Watson,

Mrs Watson, Pater Grant, John Macaulay, Constable Miller, and Detective O'Connor —Mr Hanlon submitted that the information could not succeed. The charge was that the men stole Is 4d, the property of Mr Watson, but there Was no evidence of the theft, and the money was not Identified. The watch chain, with the lon-dollar gold piece attacljedj paß not t&Mn « om "rant's room at all. Ityaa triie it had been removed from one place to another, but it was hard to say how that happened. The men were also charged with stealing a five-dollar gold piece, but it was not identified. The evidence with regard to it was that a coin of Abe kind was in Mr Grant's possession a fortnight before the men were found in the hotel, and that at the expiration of the fortnight a five-dollar piece was found in Donovan's possession. Grant himself admitted that he could not say the coin was his. Counsel had never before heard of such a flimsy case being dragged into court, and he did not see that it could possibly be sent for trial.—The Bench, after consideration, said that taking all the circumstances into account they would commit the two accused for trial.