RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume 14, Issue 1158, 3 June 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

' ' - ,-. FRIDAY, MAY 2? . -ij". itH'y . ■ (Before J. Anderson, Esq., R.M., J. A. Smith, h J. P., and Joseph .Rhodes, Esq., J.P.) : '-'■" CIVIL' GASESV" ':'■■ ■"'•"-"- ::'Y ; -■**■*: Merritt and Wilson v. 7M ! 7llardy.j--Xi}i&\m \ ./ for £25 for sinking an .Artesian well oh- ..." defendant's"premises "'afc"" Havelock. ki From w<s ' the plaintiff's evidence it| appeared that they _en.tered_ into an_agreement with the defendant to sink a well,, the terms of the agreement being that if they, succeeded in obtaining . a..< flow, off water,, ; they , were to .-., receive £25 for the work., - If the water X reached the tpp.pf the fence, they, were to receive £30, and ahove that ' ; height, £35. : It was understood that they were to get as good a flow as possible. -/This they had done, having obtained, a flow of water to the heiehi of'tw.o feelabove the surface.'- \ Since theh,y however, the water had not '-.y---risenabove the surface,'ahd the defendant; 1 l ' refused to pay for the* work. The plain- , ; tiffs would have gone on and endeavoured ! '' to obtain a better supply, but the defendant would not come to, any arrangement with them, and they ; were compelled to take proceedings'. ; ''•'- y . f _ John, Gf<arry stated^hat he had inspected y .-, the work, and, although the flow, of water : ' was not what could be called a'.gobd one,. ; = it was sufficient to su'p{)ly' 'the house.'' , More water; could :;b.e obtained by. sinking deeper, /asiheybeiieved, ..from, his, ex- -• . perience, that^ there was a supply of water below the level readied by the pfaintrfTs. ' '"""" . The defendant, -in.- his evidence, stated that the plaintiffs, when they entered into the contract, guar/anteed tp'Obtain a good :r flow of ; water. 4 Instead there was. ~_ scarcely any .water at. all, and what little vf there was had not filled a hole, 10, feet, ; deep, afc the. top qf f the well, ... ~ .'..,-./ In reply to a question from the Bench, ; . the defendant stated that he had. taken, np „\ means of ascertaininjg- the -actual, flow of ;. water, and-^id ,not-_:now' whether or not the water soaked/into the soil around the , top of the well. The Bench gave judgment for the plaintiffs, with costs, £3 lis. . .-.* -• -, ' Fisher v. Busselll^Cla.im Tbr £49 16s. for services as an accountant in making up* y books and stating. balance sheet -ior the = l! Hawke's Bay .Steam Boiling-down Cpm;";, ; pany. The case,] although it occupied the Court a considerable, ti.me, . was a .very, simple one. was engaged by the „ defendant to prepare sheet, afc,,:;. £2 2s. per day, and in order to do so; in „ ; compliance "with/. the; provisions; of the •* Joint Stock Company's Act," he foundy , it necessary to open a fresh set of books by double entry— the books of the Company having been kept by single entry. Plaintiff was occupied 23. days at the work, and on sending in his account defendant objected to pay it, on the ground thafc he was unaware that' plaintiff would have been engaged such a length of time. The defence consisted chiefly of an as-' „,;'■ serfcion that tbe plaintiff had charged- at -' the rate of £2 2s. per day for mere clerical ywork, and had misled the defendant as' toy the length of iime'he would be employed. •'- The Bench gave judgment for plaintiff for £40 with costs. ' " Brenton v. Foc'ett.— Claim for £6 10s. :; for work done. - Adjourned for the evidence of a witness. ■-■ - x- : ''. ASSAULT. William Baker was charged, on the information of Henry deLisle Tupper, with having on the 21str day of May assaulted him by striking him with a stick. The prosecutor gave evidence that on the evening of the 21sfc he was walking on the public road at Wairoawiti valley, * and on approaching a clump -of Manuka ; the defendant jumped out of the Manuka ; and struck him a severe blow in the face ; with a stick. Lambton- Garter, who was ■*" with witness- at the time, ran and picked him up. Recognized the defendant as the person who struck him. It occurred be- - • tween 9 and 10 o'clock at night. Ifc was starlight, but there was no moon. In - cross-examination the prosecutor said he was not drunk at the time. Lambton Carter deposed that he was with the prosecutor at the house of George Herbert on the night in question, and left there with the prosecutor. Was about 10 paces behind Mr. -Tupper when he (witness) saw him fall, and prosecutor said . " Willie Baker has struck me in the eye," ' Mr. Tupper Was sober. -'Did not see Willie Baker: ' Saw people about,' but nY was too dark to recognize anyone. Could '■■ recognize anyone who was close enough to stn'ke a blow with a stick. . " George Herbert was sworn, but he did not appear, to know anything of the assault. . , . :Y For the defence, Helen Hawker was called, and deposed .that she was present on the occasion of some children being outside Herbert's house. The children had gone there with tins to make a noise, as was usual when a wedding had taken place. Mr. Tupper was a little drunk, and was running after the children and fell into a ditch. William Baker did not strike Mr. Tupper. Witness saw the person who did strike him. . Frederick Hawker gave similar evidence. -..-'. Jane Hawker, in her evidence, stated that it was Mrs. Baker who struck- Mr. Tupper. Mrs. Baker was then examined and declared she struck the defendant with a ! stick in self defence as he was running after her. -..-■;•. ■ •-, The Bench dismissed the information.

SATURDAY, MAY 28.

(Before J, Anderson, Esq.. R.M., William Russell* Esq., J.P., H. S. Tiffen, Esq., J.P., and E. Catchpool. Esq., J.P.) EBBJUBY. John Buchanan was charged, on the information of James Watt, with having been guilty of perjury in the evidence he gave at the trial of an action at the recent sittings of the Supreme Court. The .perjury assigned was that the accused did at the said trial, amongst other things, say that a certain charge for carriage made by the plaintiffs against the defendants could not apply to the defendant's wool, and thafc the defendant said "I don't know anything about the 8 bales of wool," for the. carriage of which he was sought to be charged, well knowing such statementito be false. The evidence of numerous witnesses was taken in support df tl.e Charge, which went to prove thafc the defendant made use of the words. "That he did use the words the defendant did not deny, but declared that when he said he knew nothing of the 8 bales of wool he offered to explain the meaning of the expression, hut was prevented from doing so. : On being questioned as to 8 bales of wool, for which the prosecutor had given him credit, the defendant said he knew nothing about them, but afc tha same time, said " I will explain." The prosecutor's counsel upon this said, "addressing the Judge, " We shall have a speech your Honor," to which Mr. Buchanan retorted '? That is more than you can, make." This, called for severe animadversion from the Judge, and the result was that the subject dropped, and Mr. Buchanan left the wit-ness-box without being interrogated further. » •""£'-- > - V The information was dismissed.