HAWERA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume I, Issue 24, 3 July 1880, Page 2

HAWERA RESIDENT 'MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M., and. J. B. Lysaght, Esq., J.P.)- • A PETTY THEFT. Chailes Williams, laborer, Normanby, .. was charged with stealing sausages from- • John Treweek bi.tel.er, on the 29th ult.J In answer to tbe Bench, the accused pleaded guilty, but stated that he was" a little the worse of liquor when lie took •' the sausages. It was the first time he . , ever did anything of the kind. John Treweek, jun., saw the sausages • in prisoner's possession on Tuesday evening. Witness sold some black puddings to the accused, but not the white ones. In answer to the prisoner, witness stated that he never knew him to do anything of the kind before. Owen Pleasants, a constable, stationed at Normanby, stated he saw th prisoner hanging about Mr. Trew ek's shop in a suspicious manner, and he watched him, and saw him taking the sausages. Witness said accused was eating one of the sausages when he went up to him. Asked accused where he got the sausages, and he replied that he bought them. Witness took him back to the shop, and asked Mr. Treweek whether he had bought the sausages there ; Mr. Treweek replied that accused had purchased some black ones, but the others were stolen, and he pointed to the place from where they were taken. The prisoner was, a little the worse of liquor, but he showed a considerable amount of cunning for all' that.

The Bench sentenced the prisoner to 14 days' imprisonment, with hard labor, as it was the first conviction, the Resident Magistrate adding that it was a mean, petty larceny that the prisoner had been guilty of.

WILFUL DAMAGE.

Te Aio, a native at Ketemarae, was charged with wilfully damaging the panel of a dcor in the Old Ketemarae Hotel, the property of Joseph. Wilson, on the 4th ultimo.

Joseph Wilson, lessee of the hotel, stated that he was absent when tlie damage was done, and when witness went o tie prisoner he said that he did not know what be was doing, as he was drunk.

Harriet Evelyn Wilson, wife of last witness, stated that the prisoner had been annoying her, and tried to take a pair of boots away. She went into a room and . locked the door. The prisoner knocked at the door, and as he could not get in he took a stick and committed the damage*. The prisoner was sober. He went behind the bar once, and witness had to turn him out. She was anxious to get, him out of the house, as Mr. Wilson had caught him stealing candles a short time previously. In reply to the Bench, witness stated. . that there were a lot of Maoris in the • hotel, and some man had " shouted" for the lot of them. Witness was quite sure the accused was sober. William Commery saw the accused break the door. Mrs. Wilson shut the door twic , and the third time she locked J it. The prisoner then took a stick and broke the door, first using the sharppointed end of the stick. Witness asked prisoner why he broke the door, and the latter replied it was in consequence of ' something .Mrs. Wilson.had accused him of; but he (witness) was " not well versed, in the Maori language." He did not., think the accused was drunk ; he thought, the damage was committed wilfully. The prisoner made a statement to the Bench, in which he admitted that he and other natives were at the public-house " drinking grog." \ There were Europeans there as well. Mr. Wilson offered him a saddle, £2, and a " shout" in exchange for his horse. Accused asked Mr. Wilson to " shout," and he did half a gallon. Two Europeans " shouted" two half gallons, and Rangihaio " shouted" another half a gallon. " All the natives got drunk, and all the Europe ns got drunk also." He had so many pints of beer, he did not know what lie was doing,and when Mr. Wilson came to the pah, accused told him that he remembered nothing about breaking the door. Mr. Wilson said he would have to pay for the damage, and accused said he would do so when Aikinan came back.

The Bench considered there had been no premeditation or felonious intent proved, and consequently the accused would be lightly punished. Drink was at the bottom of it, and the Bench thought the hotelkeeper was to blame for having supplied so much drink. Hotelkeepers in out-districts were not as careful as they should be in supplying the natives with drink. The prisoner would be fined £1 ss, and 15s damages ; in default, 14 days' imprisonment.

THREATENING LANGUAGE.

Frederick Newsham, Normanby, was charged by Charles Allen, of the same place, with using threatening language. Mr. Barleyman appeared for the defence, and stated that his client did not admit the charge. Charles Allen, sworn, stated that he regretted that he had to appear in Court to prosecute any man. The Bench — Never mind; we will go on with the case.

Plaintiff stated that he met defendant I on Saturday morning, and bade him " Good morning," adding, " Feed is very scarce ; your bullocks appear to be aware of the fact ; for last night I had a hantl-to-hand fight to keep them out of my garden." The prisoner replied that he would put the plaintiff in the mud if he came near him, and would set his dogs on to him. It appeared to him (witness) as if some people in Normanby believed they were under different laws to those in Wellington, or Wanganui, or any other part of the colony, and the accused belonged to a class — a vicious class — which hung about public-houses. Witness objected to being " torn in pieces by ferocious dogs," and he did not " care about being dipped in a mud-pond." Therefore, he asked the protection of the Court to secure him against such threats. Cross-examined by Mr. Barleyman — Was afraid when the defendant spoke to him. The defendant was a strong, ablebodied young man, and plaintiff was, like Mr. Barleyman, advanced in years. Mr. Barleyman said he quite sympathised with the plaintiff, so far as the matter of years was concerned. Witness stated that further threats had been used to him after the day in question. Did not threaten to shoot witness's bullocks, but stated that he would not have his garden " devastated like that ol his neighbor's."

Mr. Barleyman submitted that there was nothing in the threats, and that the plaintiff proved, by his own excited manner, that it was only some angry altercations which had taken place.

Frederick Newsham, the defendant, Stated that the first thing he saw on Saturday morning was the plaintiff coming to him, and threatening to shoot his bollocks if witness did not keep them out of his (plaintiff's) neighbor's garden. Plaintiff picked up a piece of wood, and threatened defendant. The plaintiff was the aggressor, and it was after that witneßS threatened to put him in the mudbole. Mr. Quin come past at the time, and said, " Newsham, don't lose your temper." Witness then walked away, and left the plaintiff there with the wood i i his hand.

Plaintiff (to defendant) — Did I not say to you in a civil manner, " Good inomiug — a very sharp morning — feed is getting very scaree — your bullocks appear to be aware of it?"

Defendant denied that plaintiff spoke to him in a civil manner. Witness passed the remark that plaintiff was a cantankerous old man, and that he " should be dogged out of the district." Plaintiff— l spoke to you in a civil manner, and used politer language than has ever been used in Normanby. Charles Quin stated that he passed the plaintiff and defeudant, on his way to his house from Stafford-street the morning that the altercation took place. Plaintiff had a billet of wood in. his hand, and did not appear to be much afraid. Newsham walked away, after witness spoke to him, and asked him not to lose his temper. Witness thought Newsham was in the habit of using rough language, but witness believed him to be a quiet, honest, inoffensive sort of man.

Plaintiff (to witness) — Were you summoned to come here ?

Witness — Yes ; I did not wont to come here at all.

Plaintiff— Do you expect to get paid for coming here to-day ? Witness — I do not care whether I get paid or not. Plaintiff— Will yon swear that you were not induced by bad feelings towards me to, come here ?

Witness — Yes ; I will decidedly swear that I was not so influenced. I did not want to be mixed up with it all. The Bench, after a short consultation, bound the defendant over in his own rcco, - nizances of £20, to keep the peace for six months, as the plaintiff had come before the Court and swore that he was in bodily fear. In reply to plaintiff, the Bench refused to certify for costs.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.

Constable Pleasants charged John Walters, one. of Mr. Young's drivers, with cruelty to animals. On the 2nd June a passenger in the coach called his (witness's) attention to one of the horses, which appeared to be bleeding profusely, and the collar was saturated with blood. There were several wounds on the shoulders and on the windpipe — one of them being six inches. Witness thought they were old sores, over which a fresh ekin appeared to have grown. Sergeant Cahill corroborated the previous witness's statement. The lar<,e wound on the top of the shoulder appeared to have been recently done, but the others seemed as if they were old ones. Witness knew that the horse was an old coach one.

In answer tothe Bench, witness stated that he had heard several complaints about the accused having ill-used his horses — he (witness) did not say wilfully, but through thoughtlessness and furious driving.

The defendant, sworn, stated that he had got no other horses. It was one of the last few trips that the coach made to Stratford, and the roads were very bad. In reply to the Bench, defendant stated that the horse was bad when he put it in the coach in the morning ; but that it had not been used since.

The Bench — No thanks to you ; the police took care of that. The Bench asked defendant if he could not procure other horses. Defendant replied that there were no other horses to be got, adding — "We have to keep time : we don't study the consequences." In fining the defendant, the Bench stated that he was liable to be imprisoned for six calendar months ; but as that was the first cose brought against him, he would be only fined 40s and costs. If, however, any other charges we v e brought, the accused would be severely punished. If he would not treat his animals kindly from humanitarian motives, he must be made aware that the law severely dealt with parties guilty of cruelty to animals.

CIVIL CASES.

W. J. Pierce v. J. Burton—Claim for £8 15s, for board and residence for plaintiff's son, who was in defendant's employment, and £1 6s for meals supplied to defendant. Mr. Parrington appeared for plaintiff ; Mr. Barleyman for defendant. Eleven shillings had been paid into Court in full satisfaction of the claim.

Plaintiff stated that defendant made an ofler to take his (witness's) son to work in the brewery. On the following day defendant came to breakfast to plaintiff's house, and said he would agree to give his boy £1 per week, and keep him, and that be would put up a bunk for him in his whare. Witness asked that the boy should be allowed home in the evening to learn his lessons, and defendant consented. Witness's son continued to work for defendant up to the 28th May, and received £1 a week for his services. Defendant asked for the board money several times, and his son also did the same,"until they got tired of asking. Witness sent in two claims for board money — one in Maroh for j64 10s. Witness also claimed £1 6s, for 26 meals supplied defendant. There was no particular arrangement made regarding the meals supplied to defendant, but the latter had stated that he would pay for them. Defendant was given to understand that he would have to pay for the meals. He did not partake of them as a guest. Cross-examined by Mr. Barleyman — Witness was certain that defendant promised to give his son £1 a week and his keep. His son was employed on the 27th January, and lived with defendant ever since. His wife received £4 in March, and received another cheque for £5 for five weeks. Never made any agreement with defendant that he should pay 10s. a week for board. When witness presented the" first bill defendant said be could not pay the amount. Did not

invite defendant to his house ; he invited himself. Witness's wife could not slave away to keep defendant, who had plenty of money.

Re-examined — Was present when defendant hud meals. He was a very hearty eater : he could eat three times as much as he (witness) could. Defendant used to appear as if he had not had a meal for a week.

To the Bench — Defendant never admitted that he had made an agreement to pay 10s. a week for the board of witness's son.

Annie Pierce, wife of the plaintiff, stated that defendant promised to give her son £1 a week and his keep. The first day he came to breakfast, and on the following day to dinner and tea. Witness asked defendant to put up the bunk for her son, and he promised to do so several times. Defendant came and helped himself to meals, and witness had often to leave off washing to get tea for him. Witness could not afford to keep a man who had plenty of money: she had to work hard for her living.

Cross-examined by Mr. Barleyman — Defendant promised to pay her for the meals. She never invited him: he invited himself, and took the food which she had for her children. Witness never invited him to dinner on Sunday. She never cooked on the Sabbath : she attended her church regularly on Sundays. In reply to Mr. Barlejanau, as to why she had not withdrawn her son from the defendant's employment, the witness stated that her husband was master, and Mr. Barleyman would have to ask Mm. She was only the mistress of the house.

The son was called, but his evidence was so unsatisfactory, that the Bench disallowed it. The only satisfactory thing that plaintifi 's counsel could get from him was an answer, several times repeated — "£1 a week and my board." The father stated that the boy was a " little soft," and the examination was not proceeded further with.

Mr. Barlejtnan was instructed to siy that the agreement was for .£1 a week. The lad had been with Mr. Dingle, and only got 10s. a week and his board ; and the sum agre d to by defendant was to equal that amount. John Burton, the defendant, said that the agreement was, that the boy was to have 10s. a week and Ins board, but witness agreed to give the boy £1 a week, and let him find himself. Witness paid the boy's wages as they were required. The first he heard of the claim for 10s. was one evening, when he went to ask the boy to go to work early in the morning. The father said that the boy had only agreed to work from 8 a.m. till 5 p.m., and if ho (witness) did not like it, he could "do the other thing." The following morning the boy came to work, and witness paid him off. Sometimes witness had tea at plaintiff's house, but he did not make it a practice of going there for meals. Witness never promised to pay for the meals. Cross-examined — He had boen at plaintiff's house several times, and had tea there, but could not remember ever having asked for food. The B-nch stated that the Court had to look to the matter from a common sense point of view, as there was a conflict in the evidence. Judgment would be given for the amount claimed for the meals, with costs ; but the claim for 10s. a week would be disallowed.

J. Harrison v. B. T. Hawke. — Claim for £19 165., on a judgment summons. Mr. Barleyman for plaintiff ; Mr. Parrington for the defence. Defendant stated that he had only received £1 11s. since the judgment han been given. He had eleven in family, and he had only received the £1 lls. since April last. Plaintifi stated that a week after the judgment summons had been given, he had an interview with defendant, and they agreed to come to Mr. Parrington. Defendant then agreed to pay the money into Court in a week afterwards, but he had not done so. The Bench stated that it appeared to the Court that the defendant was shuffling in the matter, and he had transferred his property to his son, to evade his responsibility. Ordered to pay within one month ; or in default, one month's imprisonment.

(Mr. Lysaght here left the Bench.)

j. B. Lysaght v. P. Hester. — Claim for 10s., for rent. The action was brought as a test, as defendant denied plaintiff's right to claim rent for the place. "Witness said that since the 22nd June, 1875, he •was in possession, and was in possession still. Mr. Lysaght had never taben possession of the pfcice. F. W. F. Lukis stated that he served a notice on defendant, aslring for the rent sued for. On the following Tuesday, witness went down and demanded the rent from defendant, who replied that Mr. Lysaght would have to pull him to Court for it. Defendant stated that he got possession from Messrs Swan and McMasters in June, 1875, and they told him that if he fenced in the place, and erected a whare, he could have the place. Possession had not been taken from him when Mr. Lysaght took the place, and witness denied plaintiff's right to take possession from him. Judgment was given for the amount claimed and costs, the Besident Magistrate remarking thot defendant had no claim whatever to be on the place.

W. B. Prosser v. James Mackay, Resident Magistrate, Greymouth — Claim for .£36 Is, on a judgment summons. Mr. Parrington, for plaintiff, read extracts from a letter, in which defendant admitted the debt. Ordered to pay within fourteen days, or, in default, to be imprisoned for one month.

P. Petersen v. D. Spence — Claim for j£7 12s 6d, for a plough sold to defendant. Mr. Barleyman for defendant. Plaintiff stated that the plough had only been in use a month, and he had given it to defendant about fourteen months ago, at the same price that he had paid for it at auction. Defendant said he had asked for the loan of the plough, and had got it. He only heard about the price six weeks ago, when plaintiff said that witness had better keep the plough altogether as he had kept it so long. The Bench asked witness whether he had ever offered to give the plough back, and he replied in the negative. The Bench thought it a most extraordinary thing that defendant had never offered to return the plough, and stated that if he did not intend to buy it he should have returned it long before. There was conflicting evidence, but the Court were of opinion that a sale must have been effected. Therefore, judgment would be given for the amount claimed, and costs. If* 3. K. Ferguson v. James MacEvoy — Claim for £1 4e, on a judgment summons.

Plaintiff stated that defendant was in the A.C. Force, and was getting 6s 6d per day. Ordered to be paid within 14 days ; in default, seven days' imprisonment. D. Carroll v. Te Ari— Claim for breach of contract. Adjourned till next court day. C. E. Gibson v. M. Danehay — Claim for Is 4d. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff by default, with costs.

S. J. Tocker v. E. Bayley, Opunake — Claim for .£l4 Is lOd, for carpentering work and breaking in horses. Plaintiri" stated that defendant had sent a telegram to Mr. A'Court, asking him to pay £14, but witness refused to accept the amount, as costs were not allowed. Judgment by default, and costs.

J. K. Ferguson v. P. H. Foster — Claim for £1 18s. Judgment for defendant by default, and costs.

G. McLean v. W. Marshall — Claim for £1 6s Bd. Mr. McCutchan appeared for defendant, but the Bench stated that he had no standing in Court, unless lie had a power of attorney from the plaintiff. Mr. McLean would have to appear himself, or by solicitor, unless he gave written authority. Adjourned till next court day. G. McLean v. J. Y. Henry — Claim for 17s lid. Adjourned till next court day. A. T. Hawke v. C. Newsliam — Claim for £4, for wages. Judgment for the amount, and costs. The Court then adjourned.