RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XX, Issue 3922, 2 June 1877, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, June 1. (Before R. Stuart, Esq.,R.M.) DRUNKENNESS. James Blake, an inebriate, was fined os, with the alternative of 24 hours' imprisonment. BREACHES OF HAHBOR BOARD REGULATIONS. Daniel Cotton appeared to an information laid by Edward Cook, wharfinger at the port, charging that the defendant took a vehicle on the wharf contrary to the regulation to that effect made by the Harbor Board. Mr Sainsbury appeared for the informant. Defendant admitted that he had gone on the wharf with his vehicle, but he pleaded that he had permission to do so, he being employed in the conveyance of mails. Mr Sainsbury said that the Harbor Board had certainly made a concession with respect to conveying the mails, but the concession was confined to that work, and the mail-carrier was not justified in availing himself of the privilege for the purpose of carrying on his own business of conveying jiassengers' luggage. The concession really did not alter the regulation, which in strictness remained still in force. Still, he (Mr Sainsbury) was willing to allow that defendant might go on the wharf for conveying the mails, but after that he should go away to the stand with the other traps. Edward Cook deposed that defendant went on the wharf, and while there he put two portmanteaus on his conveyance. After he had done that he got the mails. Defendant said that when he Avent on the wharf it was with the object of getting the mail bags, but as they were not ready lie had to wait for them. The case had been brought against him from sheer malice. He (defendant) had happened to witness a fight between the wharfinger and a carter, on an occasion when the former wanted to take the law into his own hands — Mr Sainsbury, interrupting the defendant, submitted that what had happened between the wharfinger and a carter on some previous occasion had nothing to do with the case before the Court. His Worship concurred, and fined defendant £1 with 9s costs, advising him when he went for the mail bags to confine himself to that. The same defendant was then charged with taking goods on the wharf without paying the wharfage dues. Defendant admitted that he had done so, but he had no intention of cheating the wharfinger, and he wished to call Mr Large to show under what circumstances it had happened. His Worship said it was unnecessary, as the offence had been admitted. Mr Sainsbury applied for the expenses of Mr Cook's attendance, as Mr Cook had to employ a man to discharge his duties in his (Mr Cook's) absence, and pay the man out of his own (Mr Cook's) pocket. His Worship allowed 103 for Mr Cook's expenses. Defendant was fined £1, with 16s 6d costs. ALLEGED BREACH OF STAMP ACT. W. W. Carlile, P. Dinwiddie, and T. Morrison, appeared to an information, laid by John Becket Fielder, DeputyCommissioner of Stamps, charging them with having given to Joseph Jessop a receipt for £2 10s, without affixing a stamp to it. Mr J. W. Carlile appeared for the defendants. John B. Fielder deposed that the document produced, purporting to be given on behalf of Messrs Dinwiddie, Morrison and Co. to Joseph Jessop, had been placed in his hands at the Stamp Office on the 22nd of May. It was not stamped, and it being a receipt for more than £2, it should bear a stamp. [The document was a statement of account, with a credit entry upon it for £2 10s.] Joseph Jessop deposed that he had had transactions with Messrs. Dinwiddie, Morrison and Co. Paid them £2 10s on the 7th of December. The only receipt he got was the document produced. He would swear that that was the only acknowledgment he got for the £2 10s. He had paid it to that person (pointing to Mr James Dinwiddie) at his (witness's) store. That person called for the money, and witness paid it to him. James M. St. Clair deposed that he was a clerk employed by Messrs Dinwiddie, Morrison & Co. Was in the habit of receiving money for accounts due to the firm. The document produced was in his (witness's) handwriting and the credit entry on it was written by witness on the Ist of December (not on the 7th as stated by Jessop) in the shop of Messrs Dinwiddie, Morrison & Co. On the morning in question Jessop came to the counter of the shop and said he wanted to pay his account. He asked the amount. The assistant in the shop, Charles Baldwin, came to witness and asked what was the amount of Jessop's account. Witness told him it was £3 0s 6d. Jessop said it was not so much and gave £2 10s. Witness wrote out a receipt and stamped it, and laid it on the counter before Jessop, who then produced the account now before the Court, and witness wrote a credit entry for £2 10s upon it. Was quite positive that he gave a stamped receipt for the amount besides writing that credit entry on the account. James Dinwiddie deposed that it was not true that Jessop had paid him the £2 10s, either at Jessop's store or anywhere else. Witness had gone to Jessop that morning and asked for the amount that was due to Messrs Dinwiddie, Morrison & Co., and had told him that it must be paid that day. Jessop said that he had some money at the house, and witness told him to take it to the shop. When witness afterwards got to the shop he found that Jessop had been there and had paid £2 10s. Peter Dinwiddie deposed that Jessop had been summoned for what he owed the firm and the case was heard on the day that Jessop took to Mr Fielder the document that was the subject matter of the present proceedings. The witness Jessop was recalled at the request of Mr Fielder. He said he would swear positively that the receipt was given to him by the person he had pointed ont [James Dinwiddie]. The document was brought by that person when he called for payment. Mr Fielder having addressed the Court, His Worship said that the evidence went to show that a stamped receipt was given, and that the document produced was merely a statement of account. The case would be dismissed with the costs of Court, 9s. Mr Carlile applied for professional costs. His Worship did not think he should give professional costs, as there was no solicitor on the other side. Mr Sheehan, as amines cur'uv, remarked that if the Government, in pursuance of their very rigid system of economy, abstained from having professional assistance and imposed upon an officer of the department, the prosecutor in the case , that should not debar the defendants from having repaid to them the professional costs they incurred. His Worship, however, still thought that he should not allow professional costs. BOWERMAN V. TAYLOK. Claim for £9 12s for goods supplied. Plaintiff was nonsuited with £1 Is professional costs, to be paid to defendant, because though plaintiff sued in his own name, the account was rendered in the name of Topping, the plaintiff stated that though the business was carried on by Topping it really belonged to him (plaintiff). Mr Lascelles was for defendant. FYNB V. SMITH. Claim for £9 7s 6d. Defendant did not appear. Judgment for the amount claimed, with 13s costs. There were several other cases before the Court, in which judgment was con■Poeaor?