Resident Magistrate's Court.

Marlborough Express, Volume XIV, Issue 1123, 9 April 1879, Page 7

Resident Magistrate's Court.

Blenheim, Monday, April 7. (Before H. Mclntire, Esq. R.M., and Samuel Jouhson, Esq.J.P.) LARCENY. John Wood was charged with stealing, on the 6th instant, two blankets, value 25s each, the property of Mr T. Galloway, of Picton. The prisoner was further charged with stealing a bag, value Is, the property of William Sutton, of Spring Creek. The accused pleaded not guilty. Mrs P. Paul stated that # she was a married woman, living just opposite the Spring Creek Railway Station. About 3 o’clock on the 6th inst. she saw the prisoner coming from the station with a bag in his hand. The bag had something in it. Witness could not say what it contained. He went towards March’s Hotel. Witness did not see anyone else at the station. If there had been any one else there she would have seen them. The bag was a common sack, such as is used for carrying grain. Mr J. March, hotel keeper, Spring Creek, stated that prisoner had dinner at his hotel about half-past twelve o’clock on the 6th inst.; he then went away. From information received from Mr Paul, witness went down the dine, and saw prisoner carrying a sack which contained

two blankets. In nj ’> t > witness, prisoner said it was his swaj. Witness examined the contents, prisoner offering no objection. It contained the blankets now produced. Witness then took the prisoner into custody on suspision of larceny. Witness went to the Hallway Station and found there a bale of goods ripped open. The bale came from Mr Galloway, of Picton, to be forwarded by witness to Havelock. No one had any authority from witness to interfere with the things. There was no one about the place but the prisoner. He said the goods had been entrusted to him by a man called “Pat,” with whom he had been drinking. The witness identified the sack produced as the property of Mr Wm. Sutton, of Spring Creek. It is one out of a bag of corn sacks which had been placed close to the bale of goods at the Railway Station. It is the same bag that witness found on the prisoner. The bag had been ripped open ; at eleven o’clock the same morning it had been untouched. Mrs Paul stated that she was certain prisoner was the man she saw at the Railway Station with the bag in his hand. The bag is the same as that produced in Court. The Inspector asked for a remand until Thursday, in order to have the evidence of Mr W. Sutton, of Spring Creek, and Mr T. Galloway, of Picton, taken as to the ownership and value of the property. The prisoner was accordinly remanded. POLICE V. STEVENSON". The Inspector said a summons had been taken out against Mr Stevenson, hotel keeper, Renwick Town, for being absent from his licensed house since the Bth or 10th March. He was still absent, and had not been served. He asked the Court to extend the summons to the 21st inst. This was agreed to. CIVIL CASE. TURNER V. MORRIS. This was an action by Mr Turner, tinsmith, against Mr Morris, carpenter, to recover the sum of £7 16s for goods, work, and labor. Mr Sinclair appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Rogers for defendant. , , , Plaintiff paid Ss fid into Court, and pleaded not indebted as to the balance. The plaintiff deposed to the amount claimed being duo and owing, and that the prices charged were fair and reasonable and indeed less than the usual charges. A portion of the work was done by Mr Burn who was in partnership with plaintiff up to June. Defendent has made repeated promises to pay the amount. The book debts of the firm were assigned by Burns to plaintiff. The defendant objected to some of the charges. Burns it was admitted after the dissolution of the partnership went to Wellington, and passed through the Bankruptcy Court, and got his discharge. . . ' Mr Rogers contended that the non joinder of Burns was fatal to the action, and the deed of partnership between Turner aud Morris was not good as against the trustee in Burn’s bankruptcy. If defendant paid now, it might be that he would have to pay again, and therefore must be careful to ascertain all the facts.

The Court was of opinion that Mr Rogers must show that, at the time the deed was made Burns contemplated bankruptcy in order to substantiate his case. There was certainly an element of non-joinder in the case, but that could bo amended. Mr Sinclair concluded that it was not necessary to have Burns joined as it was quite competent for Turner to sue in his own. name. The Court said it would not rule on the point now. . , Mr Sinclair said be would consent to join Burns to the action. The amendment was made, and the defendant deposed that he had a contract with Burns to perform csrtain work, flushing and putting spouting round the house for £5, which contract had nol; been carried out. The work was not well done, nor to -witness’ satisfacton. It was so bad that Mr Douslin, the architect, would not pass it. Witnes told Burns he would have to put on fresh spouting. Burns said: “I’ll see you fl, first.” Witness declined to pay unless the work were redone, and still declines to pay. The work done has been of no value. If Mr Douslin was not absent he would have been called to prove lhat this was the case. Mr Douslin supervised the work for the building society. Witness never promised to pay Mr Turner any more that Ss 6d. Witness told him the job was badly done, and he could not pay until it was done properly. Witness told him he did not know him in the matter but looked to Burns. Witness never told Mr Turner when he was going to Nelson, he would pay by instalments. Other people besides witness have complained of the manner in which Mr Burns did his work. Mr Davies has so complained. Mr Turner told him some months ago that his partner had run away. Witness knows nothing of Burns having assigned his share of the book debts to plaintiff. Witness cannot read. By Mr Rogers : I am willing to pay £5 if Mr Douslin will certify that the work is done properly. This concluded the case. The Resident Magistrate suggested that the case should be adjourned for Mr Douslin and other skilled witnesses to be examined. The case was adjourned until next Monday week.