MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume I, Issue 85, 8 September 1874, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Tuesday, September 8. [Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.] DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. Elizabeth Young for this offence was fined ss. LARCENY. Robert Gardiner was charged with stealing a pair of boots the property of Mr. H. Williamson, Kowai Bass. Chief Detective Feast stated that he had occasion to search the prisoner’s bedroom in the Prince of Wales Hotel, and under the l ed he saw the pair of boots produced which he (prisoner) said were his. He (witness) brought Mr. Suckling, of Suckling Brothers, to look at the boots, and afterwards took the prisoner upstairs and asked him if he could account for how be came into possession of the boots. He hesitated at first, but afterwards said ho bought and paid for them, but declined to say where. Took him past Mr. .Suckling’s factory, and he said “ that’s whore the boots were made.” Went inside and saw Mr. Suckling, and afterwards told the prisoner he would be charged with stealing the boots. On the way to the lock-np he said lie had bought the boots from a carrier on the West Coast road for 155., but could not tell the man’s name nor describe him. In June last Mr. H. Williamson, of Kowai Pass, reported the loss of a pair of boots from Steele and Seabright’s blacksmiths shop in Lichfield street. At that time prisoner was working in the shop, and for some time afterwards. Nathaniel J. Suckling, wholesale boot manufacturer, stated that in June last he made a pair of boots to order for Mr. Williamson, of Kowai Pass. He packed them with several other pairs in a sack, the mouth of which he fastened up, and put a label on with Mr. Williamson’s address, and sent it to Steele and Seabright’s blacksmiths’ shop to be called for. He received a note from Mr. Williamson a few days afterwards, saying that bo bail received the sack, but that the pair of boots be had specially made for him had been abstracted. The pair of boots produced are those that were taken. Had no doubt that the boots were the same. The value of them was £l. The loss of the boots was reported, to the police. John Atkinson, a little boy in Mr Suckling’s employ, remembered taking a bag containing boots to Steele, and Seabright’s shop in June last. They were directed to Mr Williamson Kowai Pass. Two men were in the shop when he left it there. The prisoner was one of the men. Chief Detective Feast said that that was all the evidence he had now, but if his Worship desired he would get Mr Williamson down. The carrier who has delivered the bag was also out of town at present. His Worship said that evidence would have to be fort hcoming of the bag being delivered without this pair of boots. Ho would remand the prisoner until Thursday next. Prisoner asked if he might be admitted to bail.

Detective Feast told his Worship that he believed another case would arise out of the present one. His Worship said that he would admit the prisoner to bail, himself in £l5O, and two sureties in £75.

KAIAPOI. Monday, September 8. fßefore G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M., J. F. Fletcher, and J. Birch, Esqs.] CATTLE TRESPASS. R. Cook, on the information of the police, was charged with allowing 360 sheep to wander at large on a public road, on the 28th ult. Accused stated he was driving the sheep on the North road when the thunderstorm came on, and was for a time rendered insensible. On recovering, he thought the sheep were off the road, and went to get some refreshment. Case dismissed on payment of costs. Mary Dale, for allowing three head of cattle to wander at largo, was fined sb, and 6s 6d costs. BOROUGH BY-LAWS. J. Beswick was charged with allowing a hollow place on his section in Raven and Hilton streets to remain unfilled after notice had been sent by the Borough Council, requesting him to abate a nuisance arising from stagnant water. Accused admitted, to a certain extent, the existence of the nuisance, but the hollow was a natural gully, into which water drained, and had been used by the Borough Council as such, only that they had trapped the water from finding its way to the river through a culvert in Raven street. He had seen the chairman of their works committee, and had hoped to arrange the matter. If the culvert was opened he could undertake to abate the nuisance in twenty-four hours. The Mayor, who was in Court, said the Council would agree to this, all they wanted was to get rid of the nuisance. Case adjourned for a week, to allow time to remove the nuisance as suggested. RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ ACT. One Murray and one Smith, in the employ of J. Keetley, Britannia foundry, were charged with a breach of this Act in obstructing the bailiff of the Court in the execution of his duty. A. Clark, senior assistant bailiff, stated he was sent to Keetley’s shop to seize a pair of wheels, in the suit of Kavanagh and Burnett v James Perrin, when the former accused refused to give them up, and the latter pushed him out. Accused, in defence, said they had general instructions not to allow articles to go off the premises without orders from MrKeet’ey. The bailiff did not show them his warrant, and was proceeding to remove the wheels when they interposed. The Bench said the matter was one which could not be overlooked, each would be fined ss, and ordered to pay the costs, IBs, the wheels to be given up forthwith. CIVIL CASES, C. Hansen v W. Harvey, claim, £4 8s; no appearance of defendant ; judgment for plaintiff for amount, and costs. W. McKeever v J. Reid, claim £2 16s 7d ; no appearance. J.Stanley Bruce v W. C. Fendall, J. S. Woodhouse, and J. Baldwin, members of the Leithfield protective works committee, claim £29 4s lid ; Mr Joynt for plaintiff, Mr Garrick for defendants. The plaintiff’s evidence went to show that he undertook, as a favour, to act as engineer to the committee in overlooking the work of putting in protective works at the Kowai river, in continuation of works already begun, and had incurred an expense for iron shoes supplied by J. Barclay, blacksmith, for the piles used, for which the committee had refused to pay, and which he (plaintiff) was compelled to pay, in consequence of Barclay having obtained judgment against him. He now claimed that amount viz: £l4 14s 7d, and £ls 10a4dfor expenses incurred in defending the case against Barclay. Evidence was given that plaintiff had ordered piles and carting to be done, which bad been paid by the committee, viz ; E. Watson, for carting, £l2 15s ; and P. Lewis, for piles, £8 15s 6d, and that plaintiff in no way considered himself as doing the work for the Kowai Road Board to which he was surveyor at the time. J. Barclay stated that plaintiff ordered the iron work from him for the protective works committee, and not as surveyor of the Road Board, as the orders shewed. C. Hiatt and D. Cameron, members of the Road Board, and also of the protective works committee, stated there was no connection between the Board and the committee. The defendant’s case was explained by W, C. Fendall, chairman of the Road Board, and a member of the protective works committee, who said the amounts from Government for the protective works was paid to the Board, which, as the public had to subscribe an equal sum to the £SO given by Government, caused a public meeting to be called and a committee appointed to raise the subscriptions. It was considered that the committee were simply a sub-committee of the Board. The Board received the monies and paid the contract. The plaintiff was notasked to superintend the works as a favor, but he was in the employ of the Board. J. Baldwin stated that the amounts paid by him on behalf of the committee for carting and piles, was done irregularly. He had some subscriptions in hand, and plaintiff representing that these accounts should be paid he paid them. He had always considered the Hoad Board responsible for the contract, and as carrying on the work. J. S. Woodhouse said he always understood the iron shoes wore to be provided by the contractor, and that as Mr Barclay had not understood the kind of shoe wanted, he had gone to plaintiff for a description of it. Counsel addressed the Court. The Bench said there was no doubt it was perfectly clear that the plaintiff acted without the of the defendants, and they could not be held responsible. Mr Joynt applied for leave to appeal: granted. Mr Joynt asked the Resident Magistrate to state the grounds of his decision, if they were as just stated The Resident Magistrate said—No; not particularly. Mr Joynt thought it was usual to state the reasons why a verdict was given. The Resident Magistrate—lt would be better when the case for appeal was drawn up ; he would state them in writing. Mr Joynt—Because if plaintiff takes ray advice he will appeal. INTERPLEADER. R. Moore v C. Oram and P. Anderson. In this case the plaintiff sought to regain possession of a waggon seized at the suit of Oram and Anderson v C. Fairweather. He stated he had taken the waggon from Belcher and Fairweather some months ago, with other articles, for a debt. Subsequently, he let the waggon to Fairweather at 5s per week, but had not received any rent beyond a pair of lamps, valued at 30s. O. Fairweather made a similar statement. Mr Garrick, for defendants, contended this was an evasion of the Bills of bale Act. The Bench decided that possession of the waggon must be given up to the plaintiff.