RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Grey River Argus, Volume XV, Issue 1889, 26 August 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Tuesday, August 25. (Before W. H. Revell, Esq.,.R.M.) John Fullerton was charged with being drunk on the previous evening. Mr Perkins appeared for the defendant and admitted the charge, but urged that the defendant had unintentionally offended on this occasion. The Magistrate said that was an old excuse, and after cautioning the defendant that he would not inflict a monetary penalty on him if he came. before the Court again similarly charged, fined him L 2, or one week's imprisonment, : LUNACY. Sarah Lynch was brought up on re--mand charged with being of unsound mind. The evidence of Dr Morice and of Dr Smith was taken tothe effect that the accused was sufficiently recovered to be set at liberty. The Bench warned the defendant that if she persisted in her habits of dissipation she would soon become permanently deranged in her mind, and after cautioning her. dismissed her. - CIVIL CASES.; Stanley v. Hart. — A claim of L 5 the amount of a reward offered by the defendant for the recovery of the body of the boy Albert Jones, recently drowned- in the lagoon. . The defence was that there was another claimant for the reward,"and that the defendant was willing to pay the money to whichever the Court thought had the best right. The plaintiff, Frank Stanley, said he found the body, and that shortly afterwards another boy named Dale came up, and he (the plaintiff) sent him to give information to Mr Edwards, in whose employ both boys were, and on whose ' land the body was found. He subsequently gave evidence at the inquest that he was the finder of the body. For the defence, John William Dale, a boy about 12 years of age, was called, who said he saw the body of Jones first, and called Stanley, who sent him to tell Mr Edwards. Mr Edwards thep sent him to the Police Station, where he informed Sergeant Moller. He afterwards asked for the reward offered by Mr Hart. Hart gave him a note to copy, which he did, and then presented it to Hart' as a demand for the money. Hart told him Stanley had claimed the money. [This witness was subjected to a searching examination by the Court as to the - truth of the statement that he wrote the formal demand for the money.] E. H. Edwards said Dale informed him first that the body waß found, and after seeing- it, he placed Stanley, to watch it, and sent Dale to inform -the police. The witness said he then made a claim, on Hart for the reward advertised for Dale, as he was best entitled to it. After some conversation with Hart, the witness said if the money had to be paid by the father of the boy who was drowned, it would be better to arrange so that the reward would not be claimed by either of the boys, but when he learned the amount of the reward: was the result of a subscription, he claimed it for the lad Dale. . The defendant said he had no interest in retaining the cash, as he was merely the trustee of the reward fund, but he thought the boy Dale was best entitled to it, because, although Stanley may have found the body, Dale was the means, by giving the, first information, of the friends recovering, the remains. The defendant put a case to the Court, .that supposing two persons discovered a house on fire at the same time, would not the person who gave the alarm first to the firemen be the one entitled to . the reward for the discovery, because it would be through his action the fire was extinguished. Mr Perkins objected to. this as bad logic, contending that the person who stayed and assisted to put the" fire out after discovering it, did most to deserve a reward. Stanley, in the present case, stopped by the remains, and protected them literally from injury or desecration until the body was placed in safekeeping. : His Worship considered both claimants had discovered the body simultaneously, and each had a right to share in 7the reward. The defendant was .directed to divided the money between them, giving each L 2 10s, the, costs of the suit to be' borne m equal proportions. The following cases were undefended, and verdicts with' costs were recorded for the plaintiffs :— White v. Andrews, Amos v. Gall, and M.'Millan v. Shedaerd. The Court then adjourned.