SUPREME COURT, NELSON. [Before Mr. Justice Chapman.]

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume IV, Issue 162, 12 April 1845, Page 21

SUPREME COURT, NELSON. [Before Mr. Justice Chapman.]

Monday, April 7. crown side. The grand jury consisted of the following gentlemen : — Messrs. Stafford, Bell, Jollie, Tod, White, Otterson, Monro, Seymour, Duppa, Greenwood, and the Hon. C. A. Dillon, foreman. William Harvey stood charged with having aasaulted William Harding, late a police constable, while in the execution of his duty. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. Sentenced to six months' imprisonment. Richard Conway was charged with stealing a cheque and bank notes from the pocket of H. P. Spershott, in a broil which took place in a pub-lic-house. Acquitted. Samuel Goddard was charged with having stolen a pair of scales and an iron grapnel from the stores of the New Zealand Company. Acquitted. John Curran and Alfred Sparks were charged with stealing a cask of bottled ale from behind the premises of F. A. Saunders. Acquitted. Charles Hutchinson was charged with stealing sundry articles, the projaerty of Valentine Phelps. Acquitted. ' * The grand jury made the following present" ment : — " Sir — The Grand Jury present to your honour that they regret to ascertain that no measures have been taken to remedy the principal evils which the grand jury that waß empanneled at the last session presented. In particular, the gaol remains in the same state of insecurity and manifest unfitness for the detention of prisoners; the accommodation being so limited, that the debtors are incarcerated with the prisoners charged with felony. " The recent conflict at the Bay of Islands, which terminated so unhappily in the destruction of the oldest settlement in New Zealand, leads us to present the entirely unprotected condition of this settlement, and the considerable danger in which it would be placed by any sudden attack from the natives. We do not consider there is any ground for immediate alarm of such an occurrence ; but we feel it our duty to urge the necessity of some military force being stationed here at the earliest moment. "We have also to present that the titles to land in this settlement remain undetermined, although a period of seven months has now elapsed since the investigation by her Majesty's Commissioner and his decision that the purchase of the district from the natives had been completed. " We consider it our duly to call your honour's attention to the operation of the Cattle Trespass Ordinance passed in the last session of the Legislative Council. We do not presume to express an opinion on the effect of this ordinance in other settlements, but it is calculated to produce very ruinous consequences here, where so much land is depastured. Not only will it act as a great discouragement to any extensive owning of stock, but as a great many of the labouring class have cowe, it is practically as injurious to them as to the capitalist. That some law for the prevention of trespass is necessary, we do not deny; but we beg to present our opinion that damages for trespass, where no fence has been erected, ought not to be obtainable. "We cannot conclude this presentment without mentioning that, notwithstanding the suspension of the New Zealand Company's expenditure just before the last assizes, by which three hundred men with their families were thrown out of employment, the distress that was anticipated has not taken place to any serious extent ; and where it has at all, the conduct of the people has been most creditable. The Government have not expended one hundred pounds in the employment of labour since that event; but we present our opinion that during the ensuing winter the Government ought to place some funds at the disposal of the'magistrates, as it must be expected that thers will be many persons out of employment at that time. The roads and bridges in this settlement are in great want of repair; and we think that any funds which the Government may grant should be applied to that object, of which the necessity is constantly increasing. " C. A. Dillon, Foreman." His honour the Judge stated that he had laid the former presentment before the Governor, 'and had particularly pressed on his Excellency the want of a proper gaol in this settlement.

On forwarding the present presentment, he would again urge the want of a gaol on the Governor, and give the other matters it contained, which came within his own observation, his warmest support. Tuesday, April 8. civil side. — common jury. Hutchinson v. Beit. This was an action for libel ; damages laid at £200. Mr. Brewer conducted'plaintiff's case. It appeared in evidence that defendant, who is a merchant of this place, in March, 1844, chartered the ship Urgent (of which the plaintiff was first mate) to convey stock and merchandise from Sydney to Nelson ; and that shortly after the arrival of the vessel here defendant applied to the police magistrate for a warrant to apprehend plaintiff on a charge of felony, which application was refused. That subsequently, on settling for the freight, the sum of £14 13s. was deducted for short delivered cargo, and appended to the account enumerating the items lost was the following note, which contains the libel for which the action was brought: — "The above account is decidedly to be brought in charge against the mates of the ship, who had charge of the cargo, and who, by very clear evidence, knew of the defalcation for some time, and secreted the same." The account and the note atttached to it were afterwards printed in the Nelson Examiner!

Mr. Poynter, for the defence, brought evidence to show that the plaintiff was aware early in the voyage that a box of oranges, one of the items in the account, had been made away with, and that he withheld such knowledge from the defendant. The plaintiff had also been a party to the publication, having, at the request of the captain, taken the account to the printer. And it was contended that the words were not in themselves libellous. The jury, after two hours' deliberation, gave a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £100. SPECIAL JURIES. Dun v. Beit and Another. The jury consisted of the following gentle* men : — Messrs. Bell, Newcome, Tytler, Hoare, Harkness, Bishop, Heaphy, Renwick, Wells, Martin, Nattrass, and Stafford (foreman). This was an action of debt, brought to recover the sum of £1,000, or the balance of an account. Plea, set-off of £1,013 16s. Mr. Brewer appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Poynter for the defence.

The plaintiff, who is a grazier in New South Wales, arrived here in the Gannet, in September, 1843, with a cargo of cattle from Twofold Bay, and employed the defendants as agents. The accounts of sales and expenses tendered to the plaintiff by the defendants, contained charges which the former thought excessive, and this action was brought to recover a supposed balance of upwards of £300.

Several witnesses were called on both sides .to prove the customary rates of commission and charges by agents. The jury retired, and after an investigation of the accounts for some hours, returned a verdict for the plaintiff of £117 9s. 3d. It was midnight before the jury agreed on their verdict. Wednesday, Appil 9. Beit ». Dun. The jury was comprised of the following gentlemen : — Messrs. Newcome, Renwick, Saxton, Harkness, Wells, Stafford, Yalle, Bishop, Hoare, Heaphy.Tytler, and Dr. Monro, foreman. This was an action for malicious arrest. Mr. Poynter appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Brewer for the defendant.

The plaintiff had been the consignee and agent of a cargo of cattle imported into this place by the defendant, and there being a disputed account between the parties, the latter arrested the former on the eve of bis departure far Sydney, where he was proceeding to purchase cattle. t Evidence was adduced by the plaintiff to show ttiat the defendant knew the purpose for which He was leaving the colony, and it was contended that there were no grounds for supposing that he was about to absent himself for any other purposes than those of his business as a merchant ; and that from the plaintiff's position as a merchant, and the circumstances of his having a very large stake in the settlement, and his partner remaining behind to conduct the business of the house, on whom any process against the firm could have been served, it was evident that the arrest was malicious. The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £50. Sinclair v. Beit. The following gentlemen formed the jury:— Messrs. Stafford, Fell, Newcome, Wells, Monro, Renwick, Hoare, Nattrass, Harkness, Schroder, Gee, and Mr. F. D. Bell foreman.

This was an action for libel j damages laid a £1,000.

The plaintiff is the present Police Magistrate and Government Representative of Nelson, but at the time of the publication of the libel, was acting in his professional character of solicitor on behalf of Mr. Dun of Twofold* Bay, who had imported a cargo of cattle into this place, and between whom and the defendant there was a disputed account. The libel was contained in a letter, addressed to the Messrs. Imlay, of Twofold Bay, which reflected on the plaintiff's character. Mr. Brewer, on the part of the plaintiff, offered to drop the proceedings if the defendant would give a written apology and pay the costs. On this being refused, the publication of the libel was proved. Mr. Poynter, for the defence, made a technical objection on the ground that the date of the letter in which the libel was contained was stated in the pleadings as in January, 1844, whereas the libel proved was contained in a letter dated in February of the same year. The Court was of opinion that the objection was not a fatal one, the difference being merely one of date. In all other respects the pleadings corresponded with the letter produced. The plaintiff might, if necessary, be allowed to amend his plea. Mr. Poynter contended that the words of the libel had in no way injured the character of the plaintiff. In addition to the offices of Chief Police Magistrate and Government Representative held by that gentleman since February of last year, he was now appointed Sheriff, and Commissioner of the Court of Requests. The jury, after a deliberation of two hours, returned a written verdict, as follows! — "Verdict for the plaintiff, damages 40s. The jury wish to state that they have not awarded higher damages, because they feel that the libel cannot have in the smallest degree affected or injured the character of the plaintiff."