RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 5278, 11 January 1879, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Fbiday, January 10.. , (Before B f Stuart, Esq.^MO i Henbtt. Gbigsb^j ' wajj Tfirf&d '£6R< for this offence;' -, \^'t :^^§ 'h^ . , wMnis^wiiM anflfaWsiv^lJ^^ Olivet oh thV4th' iristV ' , I Mii)Lee r yr&a for plaintiff ; Mr Lascelles. . *for'defendant. *• • \'^\ . Frank* Williams stated that he had bedn,'. JintlffrliWddick'sVlemploy as stud gropm..! OmSaturday. laft Itaddick,eame up<tp hipi) ,o|ifs{de (t ,tn^ hOtelf 1 flttd iftj '*' &-*^ J lazy thing," and said that iot<. two pins he would horsewhip him. iHe' • had a- ■•* wKip^ ihuhia; /hand}. jind ■' shook' •• it in* a 'threatening manner/ iHe was'in a passion at' the time. s He ' (p^in^ J tiff) never saiA a word to defendant;; \ii he had he supposed he should have suifr feredforit. He gave the defendant} no 11 provocation whatever. j , , By Mr Laacelles : He was in town j on Friday, but got back by dinner-time. lie looked after the stud horse before h^wjent., away. Mr Ruddick told him to clear <mt , on Friday night, because he would not un* load a drayload of coals. Ruddick said i fchatoif heswaß not a hotelkeeper he would •Horsewhip him. - . : ...James -Lye stated that he was at West Olive^ on Saturday morning, outside Rtid,dickj8 4 hotel. v He saw Williams come out, aiidjKu<idick' shortly afterwards. Rftdmci.cama up to, and said " Xqu , .^wopenny-halfpenny pup, I've seen ihe ; ; .'time 1 wouid_give yoft this." He hafla..; "'liunting whip in his hand, andj rather excited.- If the same worashad .been said to him (witness) he should have taken no notice of them. I By Mr Lascelles : Ruddick generally carried a whip in his hand. He tof^enwent to the stable to look after the* stud horses. ! James Cannon stated that he jJso on" 'BSStmSy* morning. " He^ saw t Ruddick''g6 u \ip v to def fendSilt and , heard him say that if he had^Uiot been a hotelkeeper he would hor^wmp him. ■ Mr Lascelles^dllfeMffthe Court, cOntending'that defendant had Jdone nothing •to ■ > a) breach^ of ther i peacef and that it.t'had >be.en .jirbv^d he gMdrally carried a whip about with him. ; „, His Worship dtsniiflsed the case. • [„'. MANN V. .; KOBERTSON. This was'a claim for the recovery of the sum of £30, for the price* of: a gdld watch and!ch:a : ui,st>ld by defendant for 1 plaintiff . Mr Cprnford waa for ; plaintiff; Mr Lascelles for def endant. ■. Mr Cornford' ,asked , His Worship (to the ,case Jhat'day f>: as j Mr >Mahn' was about ito leave? lhe cplonyj <,■•■_. [ Mr Lascelles objected sto,: this, on the ground that Af def endant^./Whd. 1 * was -in Christchurchfhad^'fight-tob'e 1 heard. : '„ • 'A' letter' wail "read ! f pom' 'defendant jto plaintiff; atating«th'at -cleffeftaantiha'a no means of paying' the money' kt p'r'e'se^it, .but that if plaihjtiff withdrew. theDresent c ■ , h r e ■ 'should ' ; remit;^him the amount 'ati'sbon *as tfe f4sibly ll cSfittf (^o so ' Mr Cornford then called : William. Edward -jMann, the plaintiff, who ; stated that' heifa^warehpuseman for Messrs Clark and Co^ 'o% Auckland. The letter produced •vyas in .tjiie of' the defendant, Jbnn Robertson. I He re- ; ceived it on the 4tH or 5tH instant. In August last he asked defendant, if he, could fitid a purchaser, for'Ja'^old watch and chain which he wished to dispose of for £30.,, It was uridersiiobd that anything he got over JPSOwasto be his commission. He gave def endant.no authority: to give credit; He saw defendant, again ;in September on his (plaintift"B) feturn : from Auckland: ' Defendant said he had', sold the watch, but not yet delivered it,' aa it was being polished in 'the work-shop." He did not say whatprice he had got for it, but h6 (plaintiff) 'presumed it wqs, £30. .About a mo^th^fterV^rds 1 ; plaintiff again called at def endant's'Bhp^! when he said he had sold the' watch,' %\xt '' had not got.. the. mpney ( f^r : it. ... . He. had, never, authorised' 'defendant', to ! giy.e^. ctediit for the watch. When .defendant waa, leaving Napier he said he could not pay the:; money; but he would.send it next wee£. ;;. \-< ' By Mr Lascelles : It was not a general | custom of trade to sell goods on commission unless a man I 'Biiyled' himself ,a 'commission agent. . He .did not ask defendant who/he had sbld tHe watCh^b.. '.v.V . ! His Wprstiip said tjVe 'affair ,^eenVed to , have been conducted in' a ' loose. m^ner. He was 7 of opinion that f - the, defendant was entitled to be heard in" the' matter, and would adjourn the oaae tillj the; 31st ■ instant. .• ■ • _ _ -..•••. :j ••■.. . ,' -■' AVEST V. J. NBAGLB. .■■ ■ i ' 3 Claim for £10' 17s, for washing performed by plaintiff's wife and 'daughter' aiid labor performed by plaintiff: 1 ; > .' ; Mr'Las / celles for plaintiff; Mr, Lee for .■•defend^ 1 . <"':■»•*■ ■■""'[^^-' <& J The case occupied a considerable time* jSs^f iOT*ft M iW® " a X ■ iW '^ONTEiStt yhi^sx%^ c°-l I ' c Claim fprj6slss.; { Julg^eij^wksfgWeh' -. .v. v '^iKOBEETS.V.".W. A.s:BAKBR..C(/(I j ,: is Claim for There ift&i no apjpearance of defendant,^ and '*.judgmsnt went by def ault;- with costs Bs. ! '••'-" t * Vi '"' dLABK^ Vj' ; l)EtlN^ (J U^ I 01iiim L £te' s £3* i^Defendstn^ did not ippear,, andjud^mept was, given for,plaintiff, •jyitK'qosis.'.Qs.,,,, a .' '. '.' , Hi ' Cfoimfovi£l9 r .lsa,,iw )i §7 weeks' rejit. It was ordered tijafc p^session -tpf the premises be given, to plaintiff uon^he $th February, 1 .unless the rent dueyraith coats, be paid before that date. ' * ; i 4 ; ; i. ' j There was^nd other«businesEr.«;-} \ ■in V-' ! ..■''■ " . , !