SUPREME COURT.
CRIMINAL SESSIONS.
THIS DAY. I At ten o'clock this morning the Sheriff and Resi- | dent Magistrate attended and opened the Court. /"The Clerk of the Court called over the names of the 7 gentlemen who had been summoned to attend on the ; , Grand Jury, as follow: — W. C. Hodgson, F. Huddlestone, A. G. Jenkins, F. A. Kelling, D. Little, J. Lockett, J. Low, H. Martin, P. M'Tavish, W. T. Mortimer, N. G. Morse. 7 C. Muntz, K. M. Paton, S. 11, Pike, A. J. Richmond, x W. Saunders, A. Sclanders, G. W. Schroder, H. E. \Thornpson, and H. H. Stafford, esquires. The Clerk of the Court then announced that he had received a communication from his Honor Judge Johnston, stating- that he was still laboring under severe indisposition, and that his medical advisers considered it to be unwise for him to preside in the Court to-day. It therefore became necessary to adjourn the Court till Monday next. After the names of the Petty Jury had been called over, Mr Sharp said the jury would understand from the remarks he had just addressed to the Grand Jury why it was necessary to adjourn the Court. In regard to the Petty Jury, the}- would have to attend on Monday next, in consequence of the hearing of the civil cases having been appointed for that day. The Court would therefore stand adjourned till Monday, a day that would be less inconvenient for the jury that one of shorter date. The Court was accordingly adjourned till Monday next, at ten o'clock in the forenoon, at which time the witnesses in the cases of Spendlove and Panzelow were ordered to be in attendance. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, This Day. [Before J. Poykter, Esq., 11. M.] Daniel Moore v. John Armstrong. Claim .£lO 14s. 6d. value of a quarter -cask of sherry sold 15th "February last at Bs. 3d. per gallon. Mr. Pitt appeared for defendant, and contended that the sherry delivered was not the same as the sample, to which plaintiff replied that the sherry was not complained of till two or three weeks after the sale, and that it was not returned. The case was postponed for a while to allow the plaintiff to refer to some other items that appeared in the account. G. Harris r. D. Bartholomew. Claimed £1 Gs. balance due on an acceptance. Judgment by default for plaintiff. Hooper, Dodson, and Aiken v. H. L. Augarde. Claim A' ll 15s. goods sold and delivered. The case was postponed till Saturday. The case of Moore v. Armstrong was resumed. The smaller items in the account were admitted, but defendant disputed the sherry. John Armstrong alias Gagliardi, stated that the sherry was delivered within twenty-four hours after it was bought by sample. He tapped it about four days after. The sample was produced, also some from the cask. The Magistrate could not see much difference in them. Mr. Moore said the only difference was in the glass of the bottles! Defendant said, that a week after the sherry was delivered, he got Mr. Moore to taste it, who said it was not exactly according to sample, but he could not help it. Defendant said he refused to pay for it, and told plaintiff to send for the sherry. Plaintiff 1 said he would try to sell it and make some allowance. In reply to questions from Mr. Moore, defendant said he received the bill about a week after the sale without reserve. David Cuthbertson recollected tasting some sherry both from sample and cask at defendant's liouse, and considered the sample was better than that from the cask. On being requested by the Bench to taste the wine in court. The witness said he liked that which was called the sample the best. The Magistrate said it appeared to him that the wine was precisely the same, the only difference "being that the one was settled an'd the other had
been shaken. He should give judgment for plaintiff, for the amount claimed. Fourteen days were allowed for payment. . Mr. De Carle v. George Sheppard. Claim £8 13s. 6d. for goods alleged to have been sold previous to Langford's assignment. The defence was that the money was not due. Mr. Langford produced his books, said the goods were delivered, and that defendant promised payment. Mr. Sheppard said he had paid the money but hadlost the receipt. George Keates was called and said he recollected hearing Mr. Sheppard say he had paid Langford, and would have nothing more to do with him. The Magistrate said this evidence was insufficient, and he would have to give judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed,
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NEM18660516.2.6
Bibliographic details
Nelson Evening Mail, Volume I, Issue 62, 16 May 1866, Page 2
Word Count
778SUPREME COURT. Nelson Evening Mail, Volume I, Issue 62, 16 May 1866, Page 2
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.