DISTRICT COURT, REEFTON.

Inangahua Times, Volume III, Issue 87, 9 March 1877, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT, REEFTON.

Thursday, Mabch 8, 1877. (Before His Honor Judge Weston.) Wyutaks v. Neville. This was abaction to recover the. sura of £200 for false imprisonment. Mr Staite appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Pitt for the defendant. : Tbe following evidence called. John Williams— l am a farmer residing at Fern Flat a nd plaintiff in this action. I know the defendant Charles Neville. I recollect the 11 th September last. Mr Nev,iiU? took me to the, lock-up. It wa3 about imlf-nB -t oDe o'clock. The lock-up fc distant about a quarter of a mile from the Oour? House, To reach there I had fo/paw through Uif nnWic streets. I w.as locked up by Mf t Neville. I was detained '•orn about l»;».lf-past 1 to about half-past ' 8 o'clock. I entered into sureties and was then released, 3 did not commit any . crime to be brought there. Defendant did not show me any authority for imprisoning me. Some days after I asked him for the warrant of committal, as I 'intended to tnke i,he case, to Nelson.) Neville told me that he had no warrant, j uor, never had one. Defendant swore so j at the last siting of ihe District Court* ' 1 am possessed of property at the pre*ent i Ime worth £10,000. I have a wife ttiid eleven phi ! dren, ami h?d I not found sor-iies should have been detained in tirifaoa »oi ( si? months, whic'.' would not have U-en tel'itig me ? loss of £2000. I have suffered, m. *nind through, the imi>risoniuent, as ul*o did my wife. < 'iOss-cx.'mioed— J,efl& ies went for sureties, 'i'oe M« ft if 1 ! !*»• te Offered me to finu -sureiies. I couM not say when my case came oa to Coui't. I sat in, Court »s a prisoner fvom the time tlie case w.as closed to Ote adjonrnment. The, refendant (v rue \o nic io Court aud a,ske<l me to fifjci sureties, and, I slid I would not. Defenduufc said it 'asmy own fault it I «e"Uofjiiftl,aud I said then let me. go, and hesti'd h.e couldn'r. He came to me ai\<\ iol > me that thsre was somebody or : ; df; ihe door that wanted me, and he esc >i-tje< J me oai; a irl escorted me in again: 1 eft.%ed.to have bail. I walked down tihiels-'trees v»ij;h ihe Sergeant. I did *iot resist him, or he might b<».ve treated me with indignity. W,hen I was taken nw*-v the Court was adjourned until % o'clock, is soon as J. looked, over the man ei 1 pad saw that it would be a great loss to me to remain six months in gaol, I -pror.nreJi sureties. The bail bonds were t)'rpj>r.'eu, nnu Mr Shaw came to the lpc'»*U)J fl»d. released me. Ee-PXiiaifit-d— l refused absolutely to find sureties. I was sent to gml by Mi* Shaw for *v months. I whs not removed fo gfol in order that 1 ( uitultt ke b;ou'.ht up again, but would have, remained there e ov six months. Mr Nevilje never walked n>e i down the g'i»l,, on aQ £ preyipns.occasion. By the Court— Mi* Neville was in uni» lbm>V.t'the time. If, miguj; be in consequence of, the order made by Mr Shaw that defendant took me to gaol, He took -Vie inlo custody in bis official ca. pacity. This closed the plaintiff's case, Edward Shaw— lam Eesident Magistrate at Eeefton, and a Justice of the tWe of the colony. I recollect sittipgin aijudication upon the case of Collins i. Williams, i adjudicated upon that case, finri <>riiered the defendant in open Court to fina sureties. The case wasr, as is uit-ally the case, heard first on that day, and the. list was an unusually long one. Tbe sureties were for six months. Defendant remained, in Court. The Court opened at 11 o'clock, and.defendanj's case was the first called on, anddid not occupy »nore tlnn balf-au-bour. There was, an b.-ljournment for about half-an hour, at luncheon time. I knew that persons who were present in Court offered to become^ surety for him, and I know that he expressed himself strongly againsUr, saying he wpull do the sa,rae thing over again. I warned liiii that the effect of his resolution would be to cause him to be imprisoned. He was not allowed to leave the Court. It was inconvenient to have defendant.in Court while the civil business wais going on, and I instructed Neville to imprison him, saying that- when sureties were available I should attend and prepare the bonds. I. did not leave tbe Court at all on that dny ? and at about half-past six o'clock received notice that Williams had decided to accept, bail. Subsequently attended at the police camp r apd took the recognizances, and he was liberated. This was about .half-past seven ; O'clock. Cross-examined— There is, no fixed practice as to my attendance at, the police camp. As a rule wwhetn t parties, agree to find sureties they are not.placedin chs- ■ tody, ido attend, at the gaol to release ; prisoners when occasion requires, i By the Benchj-Tfhe warrant .was not ; prepared during the adjournment. The s adjournment of: the Court is not for the ? purpose of signing warrants. It is for the magistrate and , clerk tp obtain,, rf fife.shr , ment. ? His Honor— Yes, but, should the staff not be sufflqiently largf , to perform I all, duties required. i By the Bench— l followed the practice which is ' customary all over the wprld. - In the Courts at home,, so far as my, ex» • perience goes, tbe magistrate sits during ) the day with a short adjournment, and at tbe close of tbe days proceedings tbe

clerk presents the commitments and they are signed. His Honor— Bnt that does not appear ! to have bees done in this case. By the Bench— Because it was not until after the rising of the Court that Williams decided to take bail. C. L. Neville— l was present as Court orderly on the day in question, when tbe magistrate gaye orders that Williams should find sureties. He said he would not fiDd sureties, but would go to gaol first. I left Williams outside tbe door to get surel ies. A.t the adjournment % asked. Williams what he intended to do, and he said he would go to gaol. On the way to the lock-up he told me that be would not allow soy man to go bail for him w be would repeat the offence for which be had beea committed. Ihe clerk prepared tbe recognizances. ClOSj-esamiDed— lt was about balfpnst 1 o'clock ibat Williams w.as locked* up. Tbe recognizances were prepared at about 6.30/ The Court adjonrned after 5 o'clock. Ido not know what became of tue clerk after the Court closed. I found him ia the office when I came up. By tbe Co art— There was no warrant issued. This closed the ease. His Honor said the case was> a simple action for false imprisonment. The Court was asked to mulct the defendant in damages for having imprisoned the present plaiotiff at the instigation of the Resident Magistrate. The magistrate, in tlie exercise of h.s discretion, had thought £U to order the then defendant to enter inlo recogn'z:inees, and. it was not the province of his Honor to review the decision then arrived at by tbe magistrate ; but upon that decision defendant resolved to refuse to furnish the required suelies, and elected lo go to gaol. That no warrant was issued was admitted, and that the constable w, as wrong in impri souiug the defendant without a warrant there could be no doubt whatever. It was contended by Mr Pitt thet a reasonab'e time was necessary in order to prepare the warianl, and that that interval bad not elapsed up lo the time ot the defendant's release from gaol. But in tbu the Court coaid not concur. It was not incumbent upon his Honor to say that if the warrant had been issued the arrest was illegal, and the question therefore ouly remained as to whether or not areaoonable lime had elapse d for the making out of the warrant, aod the Court held. Shat it bad. The committal was made at 12 o'clock, the Court adjouraed at half--I> jsi;si;5 i; 1 o'clock for balf-an-hour, and sat a^ai lua.il 5. o'clock. It would have foea much better dutiaj; thai; hterrat for the cleik to hare prepared^ the warraiU aad presented it 10. tbe magistrate, for si^c »a^ ture. Theaciion however was brought simply upon a technicality, oadithadbeen shown that in an/ case defendant woild have goue to gaol, so.ibat if he suff^eJ at aM it was merely by his own act. Tbe [sole question then was as to the measure of damages. It had, not been showa that defendant had suffered any actual loss, and judging all the surrounding circumstances the. Court was of opinion ihat the case would be met by a verdict for the smallest coin of the realm and without costs. It would be understood ihut in thus giving judgment the Court in no way reflected upon the Residing Magistrate, for it could be quite uiderstood that with a press of busioess and an inadequate, staff work could not be as promptly perfovmed as it could be expee'ed to be upflerolber circumstances. Judgment for one farthing. Mr Staite said that under the rules of the District Court his Honor was bound to award costs. His Honor directed Mr Staite's attention to the Constabulary Ordinance which made it discretionary with the Judge as to whether the costs should or should not be awarded* Goutcn Tbbasube Goid Mining Company (IN LIQUIDATION) V. M'DONNELL. This was an application under the Debtors and Creditors Act to examine defendant as to his ability to pay a sum of £200 due in. ihp liquidation of the above Company. Mr Staite appeared for the liquidator. Pe'-er M'Donnell— l am a nvner workiog in the Dauntless claim, Murray Creek. Have been a shareholder in tbe Golden Treasure Company from, the first, and have paid calls into the company, but am not sure I have paid calls since the company was registered. It is over twelve, mo» lbs since I paid calls. Have been idle about eight weeks daring tbe last twelve months. My absence , to*day from my., work may cause roe to lose my, employment. Lam getting £3<ios per week. I bave.bnd notice to pay £204 4s to the liquidator. 1^ cannot pay any portion of: the amount. There are 1500 shares in my name on. the register of tbe company^ 500, of the shares, are mine, and the bslanee belong to Joseph Q'Hanlon. The 3baresha,ve atway* stood in my name. O'Hanlou lives at Murray Creek. I^annotsay whether he is a man of property, He may,, have a, but. On my oath I swear that I. do not know any one, .else but O'Hanlon in connection with those shares. The reason I did not. tell the liquidator who , owned the shares is that I did not .want to get O'Hanlon into any difficulty. I was in difficulty myself, an^ thought that was quite enough. I have got some shares in the Pliceaix Company, and have paid between £50 and £60 in calls on them during the last twelve months.

Br the Bench— l am etQpt(^red>f Bf r Matthew Bjfroe. I hs«e beeutapfetty steady work cvn D g the Im| twihre months, having lost only two or thrt* months. I cannot say how ftpg mylo©- ' cupation may last. If th* comptay should find that they can get t&e I|bffc done cheaper by contract, tttt^pNpbt likely to keep me on. I have SKI snares in the Phcaaix Company. To my own thinking I did not owe the Golden TWt* sure Company anything. The company got judgment against me twelve months ngo for calls, aad the. shares were for* feited. This closed the case. Mr Statte a«ked the Court to make, an order proportionate to defendant's income. He said (hat defendant wan mh« t^kenin believing that the shares wen. forfeited to the company. H»s Honor— l really cannot see, from, the m?n's position what lam to do* He. is ia, employment now, bat, as be says, he may be thrown oat to-morrow. If I could think that be was in permanent employment I should have no hesitation, in making an orders bat I eeruinly should not like to, make, an order upon, the assumption that his employment was permanent, and to-morrow find thajt he was tb- own out of work. Let the cue stand for the present, and- it can be men* tioned again before the sitting closes. fie ArOTLB GoiD. M1515G COMPACT. In this case Me Staite moyed upon the. petition of the National Bank ofc New, Zealand and of Messrs Kirton and M'Lean, for an order to wind-up, the, company. The grounds, upon which ha moved were that the company were in* debted to the National Bank in the sank of £106* and that there was not thai slightest prospect of its being paid by ray other means than through liquidation. Tite manager of the, company had been, appealed to, and be said that he was unable to get the shareholders to pay. ca'ls. His Honor said that on. looking at the. petition he found that nearly six months had elapsed since repayment of. the debt was first demanded by the bank, and that being so, and the sup being so small, he did not think it would, be wise to make the order absolute, for it might be thai the shareholders would club together and, pay off the. ampont rather than see the company go itttoJiquWstion. He would* however, grant a rule msi, Mid in the. meantime the company eeu!d meet and decide npon the be3t coarse, i Mr Staite accepted the suggestion. Sib Julius Vncrei Gm.i> Wining CoMp. bant y. Coatis. This case was opened at the list sitting of the Court, and adjourned for the prodnction of the evidence of the. legalmanager of the company. Mr Pitt now moved* for an order set-, tlina; the second- lis* of contribatories. Mr Staite with M* Bit ton appeared to, show cause why Mr. Coates's name, at present included on the list of contiibur lories, should.be rempred from the share, ije rister of the abore company. ]>nis Davie?— l a>n a, raimng agent resid ; ng at Tteef-on. lam lec*l manager. o' ihe JuHuj V*nel Company. The en: <ries. in the share register «re in, my. clerk's writing— by my, instructions. % declared to the mcnonil of the com pan v, pbli?b«l in ihe New Zealand Gazette, ft cnn'ftJns the name of William Cettes. for. i 1000 s f j3re«. I for«-a!*fled the. transfer. for 1000 siiares produced to Mr Cortes, and it was returned to me executed. That transfer was never signed' by Anderson. The role 3of the company relating to* transfers require thit all transfers shall; be signed by tbe transferees. The reason, why Cnntes's name was included as a, shareholder was Anderson was the originator of the scheme, and he sold some,of tbe shares at £5- each. L had one share, wjiich I got for nothing. Mr Castes was, in Reefton at the time, and Anderson, to[& me that Coates had been, a shareholder in the Invincible Company, and requestedme ask Coa es to alee a snare. I did ask Coates to take a share at £6V and he said he would, and the company was formed. In due coarse the deed of* assoc'ation was sent to Mr Coate*, when, be said that he had.elnnge 1 his mind and would not take the sba**. tfioo that I told Anderson that Goaf es would not fake, tbe al) ire. This was after his name was ou tbe register. The reason that o<Mves*Ss name was entered on the list of sharer holders was that he promised to tike a share. The claim was divided into six? teen shares. I never obtained any money, from Coatfg. He would, not take the. share. Co^es's name being, bnibe^deed be was placed on the register. The. deed of 8«8oc!afioa is dated 7tb January, 1875, It must have been f^ed in jftefspu, between the 9 h 16 A January. Rule Htof tbe company requires that all calls, should be paid before any transfer is, en*. I ered on the register. Cross-examine^ — I put Mr Coates name down, Tb4? was preliminary to forming the company. I pat his name on. the list because be intended to buj a share from Anderson. The, declaration was made on tbe 9th December, and the . memorial was sent to Coates in the mean-. time, and be refused to take the share.. I don't know that Coates paid any *onev* ' . I never gave Coates notice of any callWhen I found that Coates; had no share . I transferred his share to Anderson on the first day that the register was open _ for, . manipulation. Don Pedro Anderson— l cannot say whether I executed- s transfer to Coates. The first time I became aware, that Coates bad transferred the share to me Was., when the company was in liquidation. I received money for the .interests in th». Invincible represented by these present 1000 shares, but not from Mr Coates. I received no money for the interest *ttd ,. to have been held by Mr Coates. Am, certain that Coates' name 1 was on, the re- . g'sterwhen the company ceased ovraj. tions. Don't rwsollec* having received any notification of calk on Coates ihsres. CMssetamined-Airthe sh««iß the company, were taken np. I hera 27UQ. I was promoter of the .company t wi« sir Davies, I also petitfonj<fo/ tbe winding*. ° P Mr Button-Yes;. th#re a*e I^enty of scoundrels Jike yon. ± , Witness-Ishould W» to to ask yow Honor what Mr Button means by calhng me a scoundrel P . , His Honor-As. fat M.ttt •■»*■•. gone I don't think there is anything to, justify any aspersion against the witness. It seems torn* that Mr Davies.' dencem^ the matter rathw looked as though ho were afraid to nkt.it np. A BMW was made there could be no fob> and 1^

■ ; '■■" . been made to appear wowe became W m&f wttnedfeold enough to put the *uer right. Mr Button said the remtrk he made - :t DOtinl ended for tbe witness to bear, . Us v «#fet/ ! fo?'lr, learned friead. But »• Jcehe had been pressed for an. e^plan«« m, he jr'mU mj ihat a m o who pro- * -, B,fOH| any sad then peUfjoned tot *:t wibding'ija and tbrew himself into the y«nkroytcy v Cour«, d«l lay bidMf opeo 1.-J ceasaw. Thw closed tie case. Judgment reserved.