MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume I, Issue 13, 15 June 1874, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, June 15. (Before C. O. Bowen, Esq,, R.M., and Captain Clogstoun, J.P.) LARCENY.

George Mahoney was charged with stealing a pair of boots, the property of Mrs Haines, High street. • ‘ Detective {Walker stated that he got the pair of boots produced at Mr Bushe’s store on Thursday evening last. He arrested the prisoner on Saturday morning, at the Caversham Hotel. Charged him with stealing the boots, and he said it was the drink that had got him into that mess. Andrew Clark, shopman to Mrs Haines, of High street, identified the boots as belonging to his employer. On Thursday last they were hanging under the shop window. He afterwards missed them. The boots produced are the ones he missed. They are worth about £1 Is.

Wm. Buahe, painter, Manchester street, Saw the pairof boots produced lying in his shop when he arrived home on Thursday last. Prisoner came to the shop for them between six and seven, and said he had got measured for them at a place opposite the Boro Hotel.

Joseph Seed, coachman to Dr Prins, saw the prisoner on Thursday afternoon last about half-past three ; he had a bundle under his arm' at the time, and went over to Bushe’s shop. "When he came out of the shop he had no bundle. 'i Prisoner, in defence, said he had been dripfelng, and was sentenced to three months imprisonment with hard labor.

■"/ vQI DBUHK AND BISOKDERLY. Robert Hamilton, arrested by constable Dance, was fined 20s, and John Hodgkinson, arrested by constable Gash, was fined 10s, and Is fid cab hire. * i Cl DISOBEYING A SUMMONS.

Joseph Richardson was charged on warrant. with disobeying a summons for committing a breach of the peace. Constable Beck stated, that he saw the accused fighting with another man in front of the White Hart Hotel.

The accused said that he hadn’t money to pay his railway fare from Ashburton to town, or he would have appeared to answer the summois. The man with whom he had been fighting had struck him .first. The row had originated through this man having some loaded dice.

His Worship said he would take into consideration the accused having been locked up since Saturday, aud after cautioning him against committing a breach of the peace again, he discharged him. VIOLENTLY ASSAULTING HIS WIPE.

John Butler was charged with violently assaulting,his wife. x ‘'Mounted Constable Bayley deposed to the arrest of the prisoner on this charge. The woman seemed to be knocked about very much when he saw her on Saturday night. Mrs Butler stated that her husband had struck her on Saturday night. He had beaten her several times lately, Three witnesses deposed to hearing screams in 'the; house of the accused on Saturday evening. When they went to the house the woipan was down on the floor, and her face covered with blood, and looked as if she had been struck several times. When they went inside the accused threatened them with a pair of scissors. He said that night that he would do for his wife. This ill-treatment by accused occurred very often now. Mrs Butlef WiS ; a respectable well behaved woman. One of the witnesses had been compelled to strike the accused in defence of his wife. The ’conduct of Butler to his wife was a disgrace to- the neighborhood. A deed of separation between these parties dated May, 1873, was handed in, and Mrs Butler re-called, stated that after the date of this deed her husband promised he would behave very kindly to her if she would live With" him again. She did so, and he had constantly ill-treated her ever since. His Worship said this had been a very serious assault. From the evidence of the neighbours, accused’s treatment of his wife had been most scandalous. He would be sentenced to three months’ imprisonment with hard labor, and at the expiration of that-time, ha would have to find sureties to keep the peace towards his wife for nine months. > VAGRANCY. Maty A i Kirkwood, arrested for being drunk and disorderly, was charged with vagrancy. There were eighteen previous convictions against the prisoner, and she was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment, with hard lat s^Kl // r. ~, - r f LYTTELTON. ’ [Before W. Donald, Esq., R.M.] Monday, June 15. DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. JX Shaw charged with this offence was fined 10sASSAULT. W. Vincent was charged with this offence. The; -evidence of Mary Anderson fully bore out 'the charge made, and accussed was fined 20a,and 10a costs. ' USING ‘ABUSIVE AND INSULTING LANGUAGE. J. Phillips was charged by J. Stewart with this offence, ’ , The caw had been adjourned for a fort- • UA .oi Ml-: 'I/--

Mr H. N. Nalder appeared for the defence. The Bench dismissed the case. REFUSAL OF DUTY.

Charles Wagner, Henry Jamson, James Coward. H. Martin, John Murchisson, seamen on board the barque Eleanor, were sent to gaol with hard labor for three weeks for the above offence.

KATAPOI. Friday, June 12.

[Before G. L, Mollish, Esq., R.M., and J, Birch, Esq.] interpleader.

In the case of G. Mackay v. Dudley and Craig, claim £SO, a distress warrant had been put in execution, and the personal property of C. B. Dudley seized upon, which it was held was protected by a pre-nuptual marriage settlement. Mr Joynt appeared for Mackay, Mr Porter for Dudley’s trustees under the marriage settlement, and Mr Cottrell for Dudley. Mr Porter said, as he was instructed, the bailiff to the Court had seized certain goods, which he now claimed were protected under a marriage settlement made by Dudley in favour of Miss Edith Beswick before she became his|wife; that in consideration of the marriage taking place she became entitled to the articles mentioned in the schedule of the deed. It was made within the terms of the Bills of Sale Act, that for certain valuable consideration, viz., the marriage, he handed these articles to her trustees, and the deed was duly registered in the Supreme Court. Mr Joynt wished to know if he was to support the claim of his client against the trustees of the marriage settlement and also against the trustees of C. B, Dudley’s assigned estate. Mr Cotterell said he had acted as solicitor for Dudley. On the day previous to the execution in this case being levied, he might state that Dudley filed a declaration of insolvency; Mr Joynt—We heed not go into that now. , Mr Cotterell—lt was then about being arranged for the appointment of trustees, and winding np Dudley and Craig’s estate under a deed of assignment, but the trustees had since then declined the responsibility, so that they were not represented now. The proper person to appear would have been the provisional trustee. He had no instructions however to appear for him, but simply watched the case for Mr Dudley. Mr Joynt asked the opinion of the bench if it was competent for them to hear the case. He referred to section 72 of the Resident Magistrates’ Act, and stated the case was first heard in the Christchurch Court. The Resident Magistrate having consulted the Act, decided that “ any Resident Magistrate or Justice of the Peace before whom such application shall have been made (to consider an interpleader) shall adjudicate upon such claim, and make such order between the parties and of the proceedings as shall seem fit.” If it were not so, he could see that a difficulty would arise in the case of a warrant of distress being sent from one end of the island to the other, as it would necessitate a great deal of delay and expense if the bailiff had to attend to prove service of the process. Mr Lynskey, bailiff, stated the seizure was made by his assistant. A. Clark, sworn, said he was assistant bailiff. In virtue of a distress warrant in the suit of Mackay v Dudley and Craig, he seized on the effects of the latter, and handed in a list of goods included in the seizure. Had compared the list with the schedule of the marriage settlement. There were articles enumerated in the schedule which were not on the premises, and the only goods in the list which were not in the schedule were a presentation tea and coffee service and a child’s bassinette. To Mr Joynt—The inventory produced was given to me. I had not my spectacles at the time, or should have written out my own list. I compared the list with the articles in the house, and was satisfied that enough was included to meet the claim. I did not make out a list independent of that handed in. Mr Joynt said in this instance they found that the inventory was supplied by the execution creditor. The bailiff had neglected his duty in not taking a list for himself. The list and the schedule of the deed appeared to correspond. Mr Lynskey wished to cross-examine the witness, but Mr Joynt interposed by saying he intended to carry this matter further and to represent the affair in another quarter. The bailiff was supposed to assist him. He would ask witness again if he could tell what goods were on the premises not included in the schedule of the deed. Mr Porter here interposed, objecting to the deed being handed to the witness. The Resident Magistrate thought Mr Joynt had better ascertain what had been seized and then the list could be' compared with the deed. Witness continued—l did not go into one room, as Mrs Dudley was ill in bed. The Resident Magistrate—What was there in the house ; give us a statement 7 Mr Joynt—lt appears, sir, he does not know for want of his spectacles, and therefore took the list from Mr Dudley. Witness—l saw every item which is included in that list I am still in possession of. Mr Joynt objected to the marriage settlement as void. It purported to be an assignment of personal chattels, and yet it did not appear on the document possession had been taken by the assignees, therefore the deed could not be required to be filed as a bill of sale. His friend Mr Porter had not made it appear in it that actual possession of the goods in the schedule had been taken, and in one respect it differed from a bill of sale as 'the latter allowed the debtor to hold possession. He could not see how it was construed to be affected by the Bills of Sale Act, 1867, in as much as marriage settlements were exempted. The filing of this deed then had no effect in law. The deed was simply an assignment of effects, and one requirement of the law was that actual possession must be given by the assignor to the assignee. This did not appear on the face of the instrument, and therefore he submitted, void against an execution creditor. He also took the objection that there was nothing in the deed to show the location of the goods at the time of the transfer, the law required that the place where the goods were and who was the holder of them should be specified. The absence of such statement rendered the deed void for ambiguity because the Court would see there was nothiag to shew that the goods in the deed and those seized were the same.

„ Mr Porter called Mr Dudley. C. E. Dudley sworn, said—l remember executing the marriage settlement produced, Mr Porter—Were the goods .in it in your possession 1

“Mr Joynt objected to the question. Evidence could not be led to show the contents of a deed when it was already in Court. Witness—l informed the trustees by letter of its execution. Mr Craig took possession on behalf of himself and co-trustee.

Mr Joynt said this did not heal matters as to the validity of the deed. The fact of possession having been taken should have been endorsed.on it.

Mr Porter submitted that proof of actual delivery having been taken had been given, and was sufficient, as there was no necessity for a deed at all. The deed only acquainted the trustee as to how the property was to be used. The goods were delivered by the fact of the marriage taking place ; they were for valuable consideration, viz, the marriage, and even a verbal agreement on the matter would have been sufficient. The filing under the Bills of Sale Act might or might not have been surplusage. In reply to the Bench, Mr Joynt said he could not finish the authorities, as he had to hurry to the train, and on reaching Kaiapoi found the library of the Court was so limited that he could not get the book he required. He would submit that evidence could not be led to prove what ought to have been included in the deed.

Mr Porter —The words “ The goods in the schedule and all other plate now belonging to the said Charles Edward Dudley,” would imply in whose possession the article were. The Resident Magistrate to Mr Joynt— Unless you can produce your authorities the Court, I must say, is against you. We do not find anything in Chitty on contracts, or Addison, affecting your case, Mr Joynt said he was instructed to give notice of appeal, and would state a case. Mr Dudley to the Bench—There are certain goods outside the schedule of the marriage deed, viz,, a tea and coffee service presented to me by the public of Kaiapoi. All the property in that schedule is in my house, except two carpets, which I sold, but replaced with others when removing to a new house. Of this I informed Mr Hall, one of the trustees.

Mr Joynt applied that possession might be held of the goods till the appeal was heard. Dudley,had made a declaration of insolvency, and unless possession was kept the goods would revert to the trustee in bankruptcy. Would the Bench accept Mr Mackay’s bond for the case going to appeal. The Resident iMagistrate—Yes. Mr Birch —The Bench will rather like an appeal in this case, so as to get the opinion of the Judge. On request, the Bench returned the deed in Court, and made a note that it was not endorsed by the trustees.