RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 5308, 15 February 1879, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Friday, February 14. ) (Before J. A. Smith, Esq., J.P., and E. Lyndon, Esq., J.P.) M'DONALD V. A. COOPER. This was a claim for £10 5s 7d, judgmen summons. Defendant was ordered to pa] the amount at the rate of 5s per week. T. W. HILL V. DUNCAN. Claim for £4. Judgment was given foi plaintiff, with costs. MARTIN V. H. T. H. KNIGHT. Claim for £8 10a, being at the rate o: 10s per day for 17 days. Mr M'Donald appeared for plaintiff! who stated that he had been engaged bj the defendant to attend on an invalid ai the rate of 10s per day for 17 days. Defendant did not appear, and judg ment was given by defendant, with cost: £1 19s. BEATSON V. HIGHLEY. Claim for £15 6s, due to plaintiff. Mr Oarlile for plaintiff; Mr Lascelles for defendant. Judgment was given for plaintiff, with costs. STUART AND CO. V. CUTHBERT. ' This was a claim for £3 for loss incurred by the re-sale of certain goods which had been previously sold to defendant, but hot taken possession of by him. Mr Lascelles appeared for the plaintiff j the defendant did not appear. He came into Court, however, after the case had been decided, and informed the Bench that he was unable to be present in consequence of the Taradale coach not having arrived in town in time. John Stuart, auctioneer, stated that defendant purchased goods to the amount of £27 at Mr George Scarfe's sale, at which he actedjas auctioneer. One of the conditions of sale, which he read out at the time, was to the effect that all goods bought were to be removed by a. certain date, and if not removed at that date they were to be resold at the purchaser's loss,

should they not realise the^'ambunt they were originally sold for. THe defendant /. had purchased the goods in question, had paid a deposit of £s,pn-them; but had not taken delivery of them. They were con-"^^ ,: sequently again sold, and the total loss T resulting from the sale was £3 the ;i amount now sued for. ■■'':. Judgment was given for plaintiff, with costs. , JENSEN AND CO. V. SMITH. Thiß was a judgment summons for jgis 6s for a jewellery account. ' x ' Mr LaScelles appeared for plaintiff : Mr Lee for defendant. Defendant was ordered to pay the amount at the rate of £1 per week j td default ; of a single payment, to be imprisoned for one month. NEAL AND Clßsß V. W. A. BAEBBi . „T his was a -judgment Bummonß'fbr £l 6 12s lOd.. „ . \ t >. Defendant did riot appear. He waS ordered to pay £1 per week ;, in default to be imprisoned for one morith.'" ROBERTS V. W. A.'baKßß; Claim £7 ss. Judgment summons. Defendant was; ordered to pay £1 per week, the first payment to be. made oil Saturday, the 15th instant. ■'"' OBTAINING JfONEY ON ' FAXSE yB&TENtbiSi John Frederic Dear, who was remanded from the previous day on a similar charge, was again';; charged with having obtained from W:-A. Beecroft; hptelkeeper, the sum of £5 on false pretences.^ Inspector Scully prosecuted, sand Mr Lee appeared for the prisoner. William Arthur Beqcroft stated that prisoner had been staying at the Railway Hotel at Hastings." ., On the sth he &ked witness for a blank cheque on 'the Union Bank,, which he gave him. Prisoner, then filled in a cheque for £5, and witness gave . him five £1 notes for it. Prisoner .said he had money in town, and that if he (witness) sent Jhe cheque into town' he should find it all-right. On- Saturday . morning he sent the cheque in to the bank ' at Napier. It was returned" with the/^. words' " No advice " written on the 1 back. Witness then got a policeman; and gave tho cheque to him. --■:■ --y.-> .- • By Mr Lee : Ido not cash Cheques for people whoml do not know, prisoner was staying in my House, for three days. Britton Irwih, police constable, stated that on Saturday last ,he was csentior by Mr Beecroft, who gave him the cheque (produoed). He arrested prisoner .at'Na. pier ; he made no statement except to say^v he would make it all right. - A"'' William^ Henry Tylee, clerk iri*' ; theT^ ; Union Bank, stated that " he received the : 1 cheque produced on Saturday last. : He returned it with the words, ''Noidyice-' written on the back of it. Therejwas'no person named J. F. Dear had an account at the Union Bank. .. . , Mr Lee addressed the Court for. the prisoner. He contended that prisoner's; conduct was foolish rather than criminal.'-, considering the surrounding > circumstances. . Prisoner also expected that some ; money would have been lodged to hia credit in the bank by that time. " He" said , hotelkeepers were themselves much to blame for cashing cheques for people they knew nothing about. ' >A ' } The Bench retired fox a few.ibiuutea, and on returning into - Court •'sentenced the prisoner to one month's imprisonment 1 with hard labor in each case,Gthei a sen- •< tences to be concurrent. Their Worships also were of opinion that hotelkeepers and ,_ others were guilty of great folly :f or the _ loose manner in which they cashed c cheques given to them by strangers. :• : is. ASSAULT. -:••■■■■- - ' Thomas Patterson Fuller was charged , r by William Henry Sellars with having,. r, assaulted his son, a boy of five years, on Saturday last, by striking him with a jj, stick. '/ '"'■,-•■" .'"' ( ' ;■""■ )f WiUiam Henry Sellars stated that he 0 did not witness the assault, but. saw, the c child immediately afterwards. The marks of the blows on the boy were visible for several days. • The child met with L an accident by being >burnt about ten '_ months .ago, Defendant did not deny, striking the child; he said the chUdhad.ii« n no business in the place where he f fbiin(d } j him. It was an old unoccupied house. ' r By Mr Lee : ; The doors of the house '._ were continually open. He did not think ~ his children broke the windows. The. £ child was much- hurt across the" loins. ( _ He did not. think' it was through ? the window sash faUing on him. -^ . ' . jl Rachel Florinda Sylvester ; .stated : that ["_ on Saturday evening she.' heard an unusual noise, and looking ouV she < saw the L l child falling,? and ttheti.'saw defendant £ striking him with . a stick. • The house in , c question was' empty, and the children : were all in the habit of playing aboutthere. ' - 0 Mrs Sellars corroborated the evidence as r to the marks being found upon the boy. TV The defendant, being sworn, stated that c he was agent for the house in question. He had fastened up the doors and wine dows, and recently found that several £ windows were broken, and the back door ,_ broken open. On Saturday/evening he t l found three boys there. He struck one c of them, but not young Sellars. The j latter was endeavoring to escape through ) s the window when the sash fell on him, . and he (defendant) had to come to release ■■ , ' him. He could swear he did not strike -' 5 the child at all. - 1 / The defendant was fined ss, each party g to pay their own costs. . .-.,; t CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. " Thomas GJasson was charged with hay- ' i} ing, on Saturday last, cruelly ill-treated a horse in Dickens-street. • £ The defendant pleaded guilty. c Constable Byrne stated that. he was sent for on Saturday last to see a horse that 3 had been ill-used. He found the animal _ in Gray's stable, bleeding from a number _ of wounds. There was also a deep cut on the right side. John Davies deposed to seeing the s defendant treating his horse in a brutal, . manner on the day in question. , .He > flogged him repeatedly with his whip, and altogether behaved in such a manner as to excite the indignation of the bystanders. Other witnesses were called in support of the charge. Defendant was fined 20s and costs, 11s. That was all the business.