Resident Magistrate's Court.

Marlborough Express, Volume III, Issue 127, 25 July 1868, Page 5

Resident Magistrate's Court.

I3LI NHEIM — Monday, July 20, 1868. [Before S. L. Muller, Esq., KM.] Jol n Travers was brought up in custody charged with being drunk and disorderly on Sunday last. Police-constable Paap said prisoner was makin g use of very bad language at the Royal Oak, making a great noise both inside and outside, and resisted his taking him. The Magistrate said in consideration of this occurring on the Sunday, and his resisting the officer, he would inflict the full penalty of 20s. and Is. 6d. costs. The! fine was paid. JOSEPH LAW V. AIXPOET. Mr.Turton acted for plaintiff. Thi6 was an action for £4, value of a pig killed by defendant, and £2, damage done to another. Joseph Law deposed that on the Bth of May last some of his pigs strayed and got to the barley stacks of defendant. He was i

at home and heard a noise. His housekeeper went out, and saw Allport diiviug the pigs away from the stacks with something in his hand like a fork. There weie generally forks lying by the stacks. _ Next morning, between the stacks and his own pig-stye, he found one pig dead, with a wound made from behind that admitted a stick 6or 7 inches. The wounded pig had been struck near the same place. It was then fat, but was now poor, and he did not think it would ever get sound. Since this summons had been served, defendant came to him and used violent language, and said if he went on with the case he would do much worse. (The Bench could not admit that as evidence, this being only a civil action.) He had not asked defendant for £6 claimed.

The Bench had always held that a demand should be made before proceedings could be taken.

Mr. Turton: That was the practice, hut it was not legally necessary, as the summons was a demand.

The Bench would go on with the case on the promise that defendant would bo allowed the cost of the summons.

Witness continued: The boundary between their properties had been damaged by the floods. The dead pig was on his suction where there is a creek between. He had seen defendant once since this occurred, and the summons was served. He had never mentioned to defendant there was a pig killed, nor to any of the family, lie believed all the machine men saw the pigMary Cargill deposed she was housekeeper at Law’s. On the Bth of May she heard a dog bark, and saw Allport driving some pigs out of his rick yard. He had something in his hand like a stick. They were Law’s pigs. Pour were in the yard, and they made for home. She saw them come out. She could distinguish from that distance that they were the pigs, because they came straight home. They came in about 10 minutes. They went to the stye. It was raining hard, so she did not go out to see them. Next morning she found one dead half way between the ricks and their house. She saw it when she was going to fetch the horse up. She had seen a pitchfork by the hay-rick frequently. By Allport: He and his son Avere in the rick-yard. She saw him go past the stacks and the son go between. The pigs Avere fat, for they had been fed for a month on boiled barley. They Avere about 150 lbs. weight. The wounded pig was lying against the stye till she lilted it up. She had to feed it afterwards ; he could hardly Avalk. The boy she saw with Allport Avas about the size of that one (pointing to the Magistrate’s Clerk). Allport remarked there was no evidence that he had killed the pig. Mr. Turton : There was a prima facie ease; defendant did not deny killing the pig-

Allport said he did not wish to give evidence.

Mr. Turton wishing the defendant to be examined, the Bench said this was not like a criminal case —defendant must give a denial or there was no defence.

Allport was then sworn, and said he lived thirty or forty chains from plaintiff. He did not recollect driving plaintiff’s pigs out of his yard about the Bth of May. He did not know them. He did not recollect killing any pigs. He did not wound any pigs to his knowledge. By Mr. Turton: Pigs were in the rickyard sometime or another. He did not say about that time ; he did not know the time. He knew nothing about these pigs ; he had driven pigs out; he did not drive a fork or a stick into a pig. In February last he did touch Sullivan’s pigs. Sullivan said they were his. He did use a fork in February ; he did not know how far. This was before the corn was in stack. [Witness said he would decline answering any more questions.] The Bench : You must answer. Witness : He would decline unless ruled by the Court. .By Mr. Turton: Pigs were in since. He did not remember about the Bth of May; did not drive a fork into pigs ; he did not use a fork to his knowledge; he did not recollect using a stick; he did not put a prong at a pig, or throw one at a pig; he was positive he did not throw a fork into one ; he might have thrown a stick at them. Since May, plaintiff’s housekeeper had come to ask if he had seen her cow, and she never said anything about the pigs. He never threw a pike at them. He would not swear he didn’t throw a stick at them. Mr. Turton addressed the Court, to demonstrate the evident connection of the defendant with the death and wounding of the pigs. Defendant was full of equivocation. He did not remember, he might have killed pigs before that; he might have thrown a stick; but did not kill; he can’t

swear he drove the pigs out, or that he did not drive them out, or that although a neighbour, that he knew the pigs. The Bench said there were discrepancies between plaintiff and his witness. Defendant’s evidence was straightforward. He remembered pigs did come, but he did nothing to kill them. A nonsuit was then recorded. W. 11. HYDE V. W. PARKER. Mr. Turton acted for plaintiff, and Mr. Nelson for defendant. This was a claim for £3 Os. 6d. for hire of a horse, 18s. Gd. being paid into Court on another item. W. H. Hyde deposed that a man came to him from Mr. Parker to get a horse for them to fetch some pigs from Wairau Valley. He went and asked 11. Parker, who was in the stoi'e, if it was all right, and he said, “ I suppose so ” After the horse was returned, Mr. Parker asked him what I would charge for it, and on my saying 10s. a day, he offered me a pig. He made an entry at the time. [Book produced.] Mr. Nelson objected that the entry was not a day-book entry, and the transaction was put down in a lump. W. Parker deposed that he had borrowed from plaintiff a horse for half an hour, and once for half a day before this. In April last he wanted an extra horse, and the man said Hyde had offered a horse, so he sent the man to Mr. Hyde to get it. Hyde never spoke to him about charging till he asked him foi his account. That was his own intention to present him with a pig, so as to be under no obligation. The reason ho took the horse was because Hyde had had the loan of his cart. Hyde had previously promised to let him have a horse when he wanted it. Charles Better deposed that he went to Mr. Hyde and asked for the loan of the grey mare for Mr. Parker. Hyde asked what he was going to do with it. He said to fetch some pigs from Wairau Valley. Mr. Hyde said —“ Well, yes, if he would take care of it.” He never said he would charge.

Richard Parker deposed that Mr. Hyde had no conversation with him at all about the mare, nor asked any question" about his having it. Judgment for plaintiff for amount paid into Court; for defendants in respect of the horse hire, allowance of 10s. each to defendants, and Bs. for other witness; total costs, £2 15s. SXENHOUSE IK MILLINGTON AND CO. A claim of £9 11s., balance of account due for services as book-keeper, pressman, &c., &c. Mr. Helson appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Turton for the defence. George Stenhouse described the nature of the case, and called Mr. C. Purkiss, who proved that defendant had acknowledged the claim was correct on two occasions when he had presented orders for the amount. Judgment for plaintiff for £8 3s. 6d., and £2 14s. costs.

TUESDAY, JULY 21st, 1868. William Henry Hyde, charged with being drunk and disorderly, was discharged. HENEY AOPAEX V. G STENHOUSE. This was a claim for £3 12s. for acting as a “bailiff. Defendant had paid 14s. into Court. Henry Aopart deposed that when he was staying at Manuka Island, Stenhouse came up and took possession of all the cattle, horses, pigs, and furniture of Mr. Jeffries; and as he was taking the cattle and horses away, he asked him to take charge of the remainder till he came hack, and said he would be responsible for them. When Mr. Stenhouse came back he gave him an order on Mr. Henderson for payment,., but Sergeant Emerson took it from him when he was arrested about a horse. By defendant: He was cooking at the place at the time, but was getting nothing for it. George Stenhouse deposed that Aopart at the time in question was in the employment of Mr. Jeffries, as Mrs. Jeffries and himself said. He asked him if he could leave, and he said not till he had made an arrangement with Mr. Jeffries. He then said if he (Oopart) would look after the pigs, let them out in the morning and shut them up at night, he would see and get something for him. When he came back in seven days he did not give Oopart an order. He took him direct to Sergeant Emerson when he came into town to see what he would get. John Emerson said he was Inspector of Police, that he acted as bailiff of the Supreme Court, and he sent Stenhouse. and a man named Evans to Manuka Island. They made a seizure, bringing down some horses and cattle. Stenhouse did not tell him he had left a man in charge. All papers taken from Oopart were given back to him in his memorandum book.

Judgment for the defendant with costs ; plaintiff to receive the sum paid into Court. FKEDK. I!b'SGil V. .TAMES ROBINSON. This was a claim of £9 3d. for wheat supplied ; £3 17s. had been paid into Court on the second item of particulars. Frederick Busch said that in July, 1867, he sold some wheat to James Robinson—--29- bushels, at 3s. 6d. a bushel, making £5 3s. 3d. In September 30th he had sold to him 22 bushels more, payment of which had been made into Court. He had asked him several times for the money, and he never denied the debt till he sent him a notice threatening to sue. He came and saw him, and said the first item belonged to his brother William, as he was only working for him at the time. By Mr. Helson: He had sold wheat previously to W. Robinson at different times, for which he had never been paid. James Robinson said that he lived with his brother William, at the time, who sent him to Busch’s for some wheat. He went and said he had come for his brother William’s wheat, and it was delivered to him. His brother fed his horses on it. On September 30th, he himself bought 22 bushels of wheat, with which he fed his own horses. When he went to Busch’s, to, buy the 22 bushels, he never mentioned the 29 bushels. William Robinson said he recollected July, 1867. His brother was living as a servant with him. He recollected seeing Busch at Shepherd’s a few days before he sent his brother for the 29 bushels of wheat, and he ordered it for himself. Busch sued him for the 29 bushels about the middle of [A copy of the summons was not in the office, having been given up on withdrawal of the action.] He went himself and got six sacks more. Busch asked him once for payment of the 29 bushels. He gave Busch a promissory note, which included the 29 bushels, / 6 sacks, and Smother bushels. / The Bench : The evidence before it was 2 to 1, and there was collateral evidence in the bill of date December 30th, 1867, three months after the last wheat had been delivered to James Robinson. Its including only 22 bushels was corroborative evidence. Judgment for plaintiff for sum paid into Court; for the defendant in the disputed item, with £4 125., costs. J. M. HUTCHESON V. J. HONEYWELL. Ho appearance. li. & W. PARKER V. C. LUCAS. This was a claim of £2 9s. 6d. for boots supplied. Judgment fur plaintiff, with 16s. costs. Samuel Tiernay was granted a 10 o’clock license for the Plough Inn, Renwick-road. Fee, £2O.

[The following Telegram was received from our own Correspondent, and distributed as an Extra.]