RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealander, Volume XXI, Issue 2278, 18 November 1864, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday. (Before Dr. O’Neill, J.P., and J. S. Macfarlano, J.P., Esqrs.) There were twenty-eight causes entered for hearing at this Court, but these had been reduced before the opening of the Court by payment of the sums claimed and confessions of judgment. D Graham and Co. v. James Copland.— Claim, £l3 10s 9d., for goods supplied Mr. J. B. Russell for plaintiff. Defendant did not appear. John Rigg said he was an auctioneer, residing in Auckland, and received the letter produced from defendant. Knew the handwriting. The letter was read by the clerk, and stated that defendant was suffering from illhealth, and contained £B, and asked for the summons to be withdrawn. Judgment for the plaintiff. John Copeland v. A. Lamb.— Claim; £4 10s. Cash lent. Judgment was confessed lor amount claimed. Edward James Morgan v. Victoria Quartz Mining Company.— Chum, £2l, for money advanced. Mr. Brookfield for plaintiff. No defence Plaintiff sail he was Manager of the Victoria Mining Company in August of last year, and had paid the sum of £2l by order of the Company. He produced the orders. Since the summons was issued, had seen Mr. Cox, who was treasurer, and one of the directors, who admitted the service of the summons. The sum of £2l was still due. Judgment for plaintiff. Peter Brady v. Samuel Bind.— This was an action of trover to recover £SO, the value of a horse. Mr. Leary for plaintiff; Mr, Brookfield for defendant. Plaintiff stated that he was a settler residing at H»wick, and about October, 1863, lost a horse. A short time since, he saw the horse in possession of defendant, a private of the Military Train. He knew the horse from its general appearance, and from its having a few white hairs on its forehead. He admitted to Mr. Brookfield that he had appeared in that Court to claim a horse, and had proved to be mistaken as to its identity. A son of witness identified the horse from its being collar-marked, and from the way it turned out its foot, as well as from its general appearance. Mr. Brookfield submitted that a nonsuit must be entered, as the horse was in the care of a private in the Military Train, who could have no property in the horse. The claim should have been against the Colonel of the Regiment, or the Government. The horse could not bo given up without enquiry, and none had been asked for. Plaintiff was nonsuited. Laoe v. P. S. Mackenzie. Claim £8 for wages. Defendant did not appear. Judgment for plaintiff. A. Pollock v. H. Marks.— Claim, £l4 1 Is. 7d. for goods supplied. Mr. Beveridge for plaintiff, Mr. Leary for defendant. Plaintiff said he supplied a quantity of goods and meat mentioned in the bill of particulars. The order was given by the steward of the ‘ Sandfly.’ The charges were fair and reasonable. To Mr. Brookfield : The steward told him they were for Captain Alarks, John Reeves, the steward, said he was steward on board the * Sandfly,’ and received instructions from Captain Marks to purchase meat. He was to procure meat where he could, for the least money. He got some from Mr. Young, afterwards from Mr. Giles, afterwards went to plaintiff, and ordered some meat. The meat was delivered on board. Captain Marks the defendant, said the last witness was his steward. He was in the habit «f getting meat from Mr. Young, by his orders. He also allowed him to get some of Air. Giles, but never gave anv orders to get any elsewhere. Judgment for plaintiff. J. W. Marsh v. Jos. Abrahams.—Claim, £3 for rent. The defence was that plaintiff promised to put the premises in good repair, and had not done so. The person who resided in the house previously, and who was present when the bargain was made, stated that he heard the promise made, but it was after the rent had been agreed upon. Plaintiff handed in the agreement, and judgment was at once given for plaintiff. Henry Bowman v. Robert Macdonald.— Claim £5 11s. for fixing a pump on premises at Parnell. £4 16s. had been paid into Court. Mr. Brookfield for defendant. Plaintiff stated that he agreed to do the work for £4 165., and was told tin well was twenty feet deep. He afterwards found it to be twenty-four feet, and charged 15s. ex'ra. He was never told to measure it before the bargain was made. He called his brother, who corroborated the statement. The defendant stated that the bargain was for £4 16s. after plaintiff had been told to measure the depth. A witness was called in support of this. Judgment for £4 16s , the amount paid into Court Taos. Foley v. Jones & Co. —This was an ac ion of trover to recover £5, the value of a frame containing pigeon holes and a stand. Mr. Brookfield for defendant. Plaintiff stated that he purchased the article at an auction sale ; it was the first of four ; and when he went for it, it was gone. He was offered an inferior one for £2, which he refused. For the defence it was shown that the articles were put up as take one or the lot,” and the three others had been bought and taken away ; they were all more or less damaged. The one offered to plaintiff was afterwards sold for £2. Judgment for plaintiff, £2. The following cases were adjourned:—J. Carline v. H. Peekhara, £ll, for rent; W. Kelly v. N. Thorne, £5 18s., overcharge. Mr. Beveridge wishel this case to be adjourned until Mr. Beckham’s return. Waymonth v. R. Graham, £53, for work and labor. Judgment was conferred in two cases, viz.:—J. K. Kelly v. Dr. Farrar, £3 7s. Bd., for goods supplied ; John Copeland v. H. Lamb, for cart lent, £4 10s. The Court adjourned at two o’clock.

POLICE COURT— Thursday, (Before Dr. O’Neill, J.P.)

Drunkards.—-John Green, John Harnett, Honora M’Grath, and Margaret Brainsbnry, were fined 20s. each, or forty-eight hours’ imprisonment, for this offence.

Petty Theft.—Robert Leary was convicted of stealing a shirt, the property of John M'Ginness, value 25., and was sentenced to fourteen days hard labour.

THE POLICY OF THE GOVERNOR. To the Editor of the Nkw-Zkalandbr.

Sir, —Permit my thoughts a place in your paper. Passion when expressed perverts the intellect, so party spirit. To some politicians the whole conduct of Sir G. Grey, as Governor of New Zealand, has been misconduct, to them he has no redeeming traits of character. Were a savage to be shown the movements of a watch as separately they came from the hands of the cunning workman, and was he told that these eventually arranged and combined would be a sure index of th* flight of tim*, he might be-incredulous.

There is much difference between the acts of newspaper editors and those of Sir George. Their acts, lik* themselves, are evanescent, while those of Sir George, as connected with, the administration ■of justice in this colony, and especially as relative to the-aborigines, stand out to the gaze and scrutiny of the- world, and that througb all time. He ponders the sentiments and decisioms which coming sages and law-givers shall form of his public administrations, when a New Zealander, sitting upon the ruins of St. Paul’s, shall contemplate the wreck and utter ruins of London ; —when thousands of ages shall have passed, and 1 poring antiquarians- and historians shall be culling from ancient history the knowledge of the conduct of Sir George Grey towards the Maori race in the planting of a European population amongst them. It shall be recorded of England’s Queen and her chosen representative in New Zealand that all his conduct towards them was characterised by a far-sighted prudenc, a goodness blended with gentleness and kindness ; and that no effort to save the- Maori from destruction, which the most consummate wisdom or the most expansive benevolence could alike dictate, was untried, but pressed upon their acceptance, that titeir’s were the preferred exaltations to all the priviliges. and immunities of Britons, and sacred as theirs was alt their earthly possessions. Such a memory is worth the living for. Jambs White. November 17, 1864,