RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT GREYMOUTH.

Grey River Argus, Volume XV, Issue 1850, 22 July 1874, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT GREYMOUTH.

/; „• Tuesday, '^ui.Tl-2i. r .-v;; ',:/■■':••; : (Before WiHi'Rpyell^E^'R'JVl^ . .William- .Whit? and. 1 1 were severally charged, ■ on the information: of.-Mr .F.;';Simpson, the Inspector of nuisances to .the Borough, with : allowing offensive matter to accumulate upon their premises.- The charges • were, proved in: each" casej and the defendants were fined 20s each with 'costs. , •■•■ ; -v Muir vv Walslu— The 'defendant in this case was charged .with appropriating a pair of. icameb 'earrings, ;thje .property of tlie plaintiff) under the following circumstances :--Thei .defendant, in ; company with .-an acquaintance, .went to the house of the complainant . about : eleven o'clock, kt .night,; and after some, .time, b.^ing^.a,^ privileged visitor hs wasjritrbduced: ' ' in to my lady's boudoir," but elle loude,and she left him there. When 3he returned • to the room, she found the defendant: gone, and a pair of earrings, which were on the dressing table since 9 p;m., were missing. These were part of a set, for which she paid Ll2. She swore positively the trinkets - tv ere' riot in her ears when, the accused came into the house, and that; she did not give th'e.ni ; to .him.' She was also positive she did jnot change aLs.note or the -accused. Constable . : MfKenna proved arresting r the .defendant, at the Albion Hotel, shortlyrrafter receiving in-;: formation^ the alleged-robbery from the prosecutrix. He questioned ; the defendant as to where lie i ;had- been ; during- 'the evening,'" when I 'he :; (the defendant) took out the earrings produced, : and handing them to; c hiin. ; .saidf^^I r suppose these are. .what' ybu' l are i6bking : for;" 'He subsequently searched the accused at the^ Statipri-h^u¥e7^wKerrKe" f ound "brrKirperson a LIQ note,/a 15, -arid three single riote3, ; with two "half-sovereigns and some silver. -Thei'Gbifstable further ; said that the defendant did not attempt io ' mislead : Ihim when; /he arrested him ;: but jthatj he made <a' .^movement towards ..the door, as; ,;H ,\^et. .wanted to. go .a\viy. A jeweler. /proyecT the 'sale/ pf. the set of jewelry : to the. prosecutriij/ of, .which . the eariings .pioduceid formed parjtf orLl2, and that/thle earring- were worth Li 103. . The defence! jwas j!in substance thqit th^e earrings were given, to the accused Tjy the: prosecutrix as, something in the nature. of ; gage, \d' , amow. ". "\ !^The girl' 'p ro.mised, ,'t.Oj return to where she left him by a,cer|aijtx time, andy^as : a pledge that that she would keep her'propaise,, she took her ornatnerits from her «ars^ and. landing them to him, told him to keep them until she came to him. He had- previously given her a L5-ribte'arid had'riot rec6ivißd : his proper change, and, finding, she .did not come backhe.left; interi4in? x tq rieturu at some future' 1 '■ l 'time ' : W ' j -'restoVe- ; ' the >■ 'jewelry and receive his , ; .jp^ange. Witnesses were called to''pr.oye'the correctness .oi the statements of^the acc.us^d,' and; also, |tc testify a^ to liis good- cnar^cjier , Mr Guinness, .Who appeared : for,:lth« accused,? wished tojbe infjOrmea.^ifrthi? Court wbuid require the evidence'qf . w woman who changed, the 115-ri*dte" th( accused gaye the' prosecutrix, but. hii Worship said he would give the' defendant J the benefitpf the tdoubt and discharge him, fiat , informed him that he had nothing . td " thatik; iihe Court for that he escaped so easily from the consequences of such :a- serious charge. • ; f • . - -Hugh iM^Eenna- • was — charged with i ,esaaping;rfr,om jbhe; leg 4; c U3^94y: '.9* \& e i bailiff of theEesident'Magistrate's Court, j The prisoner 1 had been- (arrested ; by thej bailiff on an affidavit made by a butcher named Kelly,i 1 HMaori « Gully, 1 ' thit he owed him a debt of some L 3, and that he was about' removing- "from^within the jurisdiction of the Court." F. J. Elmer, the bailiff, proved 'that he arrested the -defendant ; warranty and ,when,,Cj)nyeying him to "the ' lock-up ' he bolted, but after a chaserhevWas^ecapturhd. James Kelly, on whose affidavit ttie arrest wae made, said { he.-was f t with, the , bailiff c when 'ttie "defendant a&eWpted^b 1 escape, atfd, coritinned the Switri6&^? iioni- the-way he went about it iheievidentlylknew how to do it." Mr Perkins, who appeared for, ithepriflonerj qontended othat htorclien^

was wrongly designated in the inform a tion, his name being M'Kinnon, no M'Kenna-^thathewas not in legal cus tody, and was justified in effecting hii escape, even if he' went greater lengths t< regaia his .liberty. The warrant oi which he wis detained was not the issu< . of any legal process arising out of a civi judgment — that there was an informality in the wording of the warrant in th< omission of the word "colony," and thai he was willing to pay the ameunt of the debt due Kelly on a proper demand being made. His Worship, after consideration, decided that the points raised were fata to the prosecution, and discharged the defendant. . CIVIL CASES. Kilgour and M'Millan v. C. S. Baacand.—This was an action in the nature of a claim for damages for trespass, foi unauthorised interference by the defendant with the s.B.- Waipara while in the hands of the plaintiffs, as contractors for [ the removal of the vessel from the ocean , beach "to the river, when she was recently j .ashore. The plaintiffs claimed 149 10s as compensation ; made up as follows .:— 3 • L3O for extra wages, paid in consequence of the action of the defendant causing a ( delay in completing the contract ; LlO t t the amount of a bonus promised by the : owners of. the craft, if thei passege overr land was accomplished within a certain ( time; and the balance in incidental outlay rendered necessary by the inter- . ference. of : the defendant. . Th.c case for the . plaintiffs was that while iii progress [ with their contract^ the who was in charge of the vessel for the owners, of which he was one, requested that he should be permitted to effect certain re- ' pairs. Permission was granted on condition that nothing should be done to re- . tard. the progress of the vessel towards her. destination. In the course of the deu fendants work, : lie removed the supports , of the vessel amidships, and by his inter- : ference with the pennant ways, and also : with the apparatua on which the vessel was travelling, the. passage of the vessel v?as retarded for One day, and another day Was lost in consequence . before all y ork in connection with the contract was completed. ...... In support ; of., these allegafiions it was sworn that,, on- Tuesday, the 30th June, the veasel travelled 45 yards in three hours, and that- on the next day nothiug : could be done owing to the action of the defendants in Removing the ways it took till Friday to complete the transit, which otherwise would be finished by Thursday night. The defence was that tihe defendant had • ieave and license for nia interf erence, that he did not exceed the permission given^- : And that "the extra work, if any, entailed upon the contractors by the sinking of the , yessel was the effect of natural causes, ■ and did . not arise from the interference of phe defendant with the ways on which the steamer rested. Evidence was taken to [>rove these allegations, and to show that the defendant arid his officers had been • particularly careful to place extra supports under the vessel when the ways were removed, and had taken every reajonable precaution not to place obstacles in the road of the plaintiffs. A good deal jf evidence was taken, and his Worship jventually gave judgment for the dofenlant with costs. Mr Perkins for the jlaintiffs, Mr Newton for the defendant. 'Kelly v. M'Kinnon— A claim of L 3 for joods supplied at Maori Gully. Verdict i for plaintiff for the amount claimed with costs'. : .''•■.'■ •