MAGISTRATE'S COURT.—Thursday.

New Zealand Herald, Volume I, Issue 300, 28 October 1864, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.— Thursday.

(r>f7ioro Thomna Beck hum,- Ksq-, R. 31.} j PKrNKEIfJfESS. Clivistian Fmleiickson, "William .Forio?, -Tohii | Tht!«rt's ( "William Williams, .John Ambrose, Joseph j lluke Junes, John Cowell, Henry Thomas, churgua with hniiij* tivntl'd in tho usual miuuicr. M11.1.S V. STKVTA^T. His "Worship gave judgment in this for tliu .sum of in favour ot'plaintiff, remarking that plaintiff's claim included :i quantity ot" itour, salt, kc. On looking over the notes it was nowhero appatcnt ' that any hud. been done lo the plaintiff, lie . should give judgment tor the amount of goods *up- ' plied. IfRWMAjf A>"l> I'.WEJ7 V. ttnRL'RV ANl> In this action il ; 'i "Worship derided in favour of the plaintiff, and gave jndgnibjiV for the full amount claimed. IiI.AKK V. M'noNAM"). 1 Adjourned until next Thursday. (JIJ.FIM.AN AND CO. V. O KANT. jVfr. Wynn, on behalf of the defendant, entered judgment in this ease. Itt'CK LAN ! > V. STACKI'OLK. Claim .CIO, for money lent, and interest, at the rate of .10 per cent, Mr. JJrook/i'eld for plaintiff ( 3)t'fendunt did not appear# Judgment for plaintiff. HA>'NWV<>Kl> V. KATRI). Claim to recover £lu UK, for I'/ weeks' rent due and owing according to agreement. Defendant did not appear. •fudginent for plaintiff. VAUTV V. N'ITWAUT. Claim illO 2s. iM.,''for goods delivered and sold. No appearance of defendant-. Judgment for plaintiff. CUI'ICKriIiANK AND L*«>. V. IJ.UKf). i Action to recover the sum of illS ILd. for good* | delivered aud ?old. j Defendant did not appear. Mr. Uevcridge, for plamlilfand judgment obtained. KOnKUTSUX V. Ji»ii'K.MAN. Claim of 0-.{. for goods sold. !No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plasiitilf. DAVJJWO.V V. Claim .-Ul2 Is. Gd. f for work done surd material supplied. .defendant did not appear. Mr. iieveridge for plaiutilf, and judgmenl obtained. waltkus v. manbox ANI) anotiiicu. Claim for meat supplied. Weston ap])lietl lor the ease to be nonsuited, on the ground that the summons was informal, which was accordingly granted. v. iinvT. Claim I- 15s. (3d., for board and lodging. Defendant did not appear. Judgment lor plaintiff. WillU 1-KV V. OHI.SBX. Xo appearance of plaiutilf and ease nonsuited. ]>H thikuv v. JKVIN. Claim £5 155., for ballast supplied. Defendant did not appear. Judgment for plaintiff. MARTIN \\ UKSTI.KW Claim of for board aud lodging aud cash lent. Defendant did not appear. 'Lite summons nothuviug been sent in in duo time Ins Worship said the ease must bo adjourned until next Thursday. 'ihe plaintiff said the defendant would lnive loft tho place before that time.

Xlio .Bench taking this into consideration consented to hear tiic case, anil gave judgment for the phuntilf. O'BUIK.V V. J»EM, iMi ASOTIUStt. Adjourned until next Xhursday without, costs on cither side. JIAKTIX V. siTOKUV. Claim .£.'2o, for u quarter's wages for plaintilf ami wife. Mr. "Wynn for defendant. "Win. Martin, sworn, deposed : T am a laborer. 3 engaged willi the defendant on the t'Jth of May, for three months, for myself and wife, for JIIO -. L <piiii-ti-r. ! 1 was to do general farm work, and jny wile mis u. wash. 1 remained at my situation for eight, days. 1 [ was (hen discharged. J sull'rml a great dcalo!' in- , convenience from tins. liy Mr. Wynn : L was to he paid ul the rate ol 1 iS' 1 per annum. There was no arrangement nu-n- ] tioni-d about my going to t:iie defendant on trial.. Henry .Stoney: : I am son of the defendant. 1 w»f „. not present at, the agreement, made between plaintiil - and defendant,. On the liot-li May J hud a conversai tion with my father respecting the deilnelion of the i plaintilV's wages, in consecpieneo of Mr Martin not 1 suiting my father. My latiier (old me tlnn- lie v.-a.-{joing to give tlm plaiiititi'J-tSO per annum for linnaelf e and wile. e 15 y the plaintiff': i'lie engagement way not fultilled and was couscquoiiily aimalied. J. found no fade

il "vviUi you. 1 Temember my brother ottering you i ), week s wages. & « :t 15v Mr. VV vim : Tii C jiiaintitf refused to ;ieeent lh e ii Aveek s wages, amounting lo XI 10a. t>d. o Afitjoi- ijtoivy deposed: The defendant, mid his r wife entered my service on the 19th of May lust. I e b'.-id previously iidverlised for a man to look after tile 0 horses una do general I'arni work. The wife was to t UviishmVd make iio'reelf generally uselnl. The defend- - r.ui. s wife h.-ul; a young hliouc three weeks old e and sue coald not. d.b Uib work refjiiHwl, 1 agreed to 1 give them .f{>o per aniium, bill upon fir.Hfih" tint - .M rs. Manin did not. suit m'o I told tlio pbiiiudf thai S I stiould leduee Ilia wages if 1,0 Biajod to -£60 '' auiiuui. Upon (bis he left, iny service. jiy the ptuiutilf; You were on trial only at ilr«t < m.-eording to your oivn reijuest. 1 said nothing at ail ■ , .i.boot your wife wasliing. I wiil swear tliat you said j tii;,'.-. yo'n'r ebdd whs S moutJis old. 'J'bu "child i s only about, o v?et:Vs at' u^e. 1 Ijy tho ISimeh : i %'fi'V-d to pay vou by the week. ' His Woiti.ip romarkiid tliat i'f tjiuio had been any ' I.vul' nre tlrd." lhe agreement, had been Molten bv the defendant I'e.isouablo eau'se, the defendant lie entitled to et'.'fjiensatinn';' but the evidence ! was diamelriea ly opposed, i.'rs Worship gave judgment. for the phdniiir tor tiio t-uni u'i £l 10o'. being the aniount of one week's wages. • Ol.tJ'l' V. JIAItltlK. Adjourned uuDir this day furiniglit. TIIOKNK K K1.1.V. Claim for rent duo and owing, 'i'ho suin of .£1 fGs. was paid into Court. riaintill' deposed that an agreement was mado betweiai himself and defendant.. Kellv was to pay lf!s. p»u- week. Jfo li.-ih oeeupied the house for raiiier more than IhroM nionths. 1 liave been [laid woaklv s for the rent during fhnl. lenn. I gave hint noiicv that J; should double the rent on the Urd of October instant. Jli'iendMut stall.d :.f rented the hou-e at ISs. pnv week innn tbe Ist ot duly layt, the rent* to be paid ..-very fortnight. 1 had a right to sublet tlio house, provided the tenant had no family. J never nai'd weekly. I Jsy the plaintiff: Von never brought a weeklv bill la Ine, and you never applied for a week's rent. " | Tbe defendant agreed to give up tbe house and pay 18*. p"* weelc, hut the plaintiff refused to acccpt the proposition: The defendant applied for aii wl'ioffrmnC'iit. Tho plaintiff opposed the application'. lii* Worship ,'Vave judgment, ior the plaint,'i:v e.uiuor.!' v. eosn;u ano co. f laim tor \vork done. 311-. Jlerriuian appeared for tiie Jofoadants, and objei-ted to thr Mimmons as being infoniiid. Jlis "Worship said it was not right to bring forward legal lechnie.dilie.s in a case oi this ualure, at the xinie time it w::.s iiigbly improper th .t po ties should | bo sueii liy tlieir only. | Mr-iyimaii observed that tlio defendants had lately made an assignment for the benetil of their creditors, and the deed had be"n drawn by Mr. T. 11. Russell. A judgment creditor was in possession at tho iiine. The cusc was e.djo-.inieil until next Thursday. luiusrs v. coouhax. Action of damages for breach ol: contract., in nondelivery of twenty tons of potatoes. lie. Weston lor ptaimill', and ill-. T'. B. Russell, for defendant. Mr. Kusscil, contended that Ihe declaration was inj formal and iude/inite, no consideration had been alleged ami no date given of the agreement. A copy ol tiie agreement, had not been put. in as evidence acco.ding to the rule of the Court, anil that he was entirely taken by surprise, and consequently, not prepared lo go oil with tbe case. .Mr. Weston submitted that full particulars were j attached, aiui to tar as regards the want of considerationf he thought the object ion raised by the Icivrned counsel, was simply ridiculous. The rules for plea- | ding in the Court were not cl'Virly defined, i -Mr. Jiusseil insisted upon being furnished with a copy of the agreement, and applied to have the | case adjourned. | His Worship trusted that the Act under which ) the Kesident Magistrate's Court was now ruled, would j shortly be amended or abolished altogether. The | Court, was placed ill the most, awkward position ill not i being able to compel the counsels to slate their line of defence, though at tlie same time the .Bench hud power lo order tlic counsel fortiie plaintitl to obey ecrtain rides ami regulations existing in this Court, lit a case of this description, when counsel was engaged on both sides, he thought it was onlv right, 'but those rules should be drawn tight., ami that thing:! should be arranged as they ought to br. The ; copy of the agreement slumld have been put in as evidence, and the learned counsel for tbe pluiulili' should nt oucc clcariy and explicitly state at once the ground of action, in order tlr.it the defence might become at once apparent. lie should order .Mr. Weston to furnish tlio Court with a copy of the agrccincnl, and the case would be postponctl until i next, 'ihursday. WVNX V. lIAZI.KOEN". irt tVc'ion brought to recover the sum of .CSO for dainage.t (lor.e f o plaintitl', by detention of a Crown grant. .Mr. Mcrriman appeared for tho plaintitf, and Mr. Crawford for the defendant. W. il. iVvnn, deposed: 1 carnc out from .lingland I in tbe ' Kxcclsior.' I -left London in the beginning jof Uceeinlier, JSC'S. I obtained iavu Land Orders which entitled me lo select. eighty acres of land under the lit Ji .Sccliott of the Waste Lands Act, 18-")8 (Mr.Men-inum produced. 1 ' tiie Act ill question). 1 duly presented my land oi-d 'i-s. .At the expiration of live years lam entitled to a < 'l'ouii i'i-ant, on proving io tbe Commissioners Ibid I am a ic.-i-.lenf in the province. Crawford admitted that tbe plaintiU' was entitled to tbe Crown grant.) I employed an agent to select eighty acres, after waiting the specdied lime. 1 saw lhe Crown grar.t ill tlic Comi.i.ssionrr's otbee, lint it was refused lo be given up to lue. I previously demanded the Crown grant, lhe reason a.-signcd was tout i suoiild pav tbe'sunt of J;t IKs. (id. for fees. I do not know wliat fees they are. 'flic fee for registering a Crown grant is I.'is. od. All above that sum musl be some [ lit th; (dot crnmcnt fees, ihe nature of which I am not with. '1 be deed vsvs not registered hen 1 rinv il. I am informed the bind u worth .COtl, which amount of damage 1 shouivl sustain it tbe Crown giant is n-lused me. Jiy Air. Crawford : 1 applied for the Crown grant ; three moid lis ago. 1. then stud that I should firing . an action against the Waste J,anils Commissioner, as soon as thai oliieia! was appointed. j!.xamiuatiou resumed Ijy Mr. .Mcrriman : I never , tuidcied (lie fees, because I. think it is a great, shame i to cid'orcc those Minis.

The Court here adjourned for a quarter ol an liuiir. On Mis Wot':-]i ip resuming hi:t seal, th<> casu was proceeded wit li. Mr. Wav;cu, 3)eputy Commissioner of Crown Lamls, deposed : .1 am aware t hut under lite Waste Lands a.et, you had two orders lot* eighty urn-* of land. Vou nnule an application at the o/liee i'T a Crown grant. The Crown giant was lcf'used by mo to you in consequence of your declining to pay certain fees amounting to X*!- KJs. Od. 1 Ik- troivn grant produced is prepared in your name, 'Jliu grant )iu& not been regisicivd, and i demanded the sum ol £1. Kit*, lid. for that purpose. 'Die regis) ration lee is Kis. (id. L eannot slate wluit the pou<<d is lor. 3t lias been the custom to charge this amount by the Government. If you had paid the turn demanded t should not; then have given up the grant, but you would bo entitled to get it from me in due time from the Aicgistialum ollieo. Y handed the document amongst ottiers ovit to the defendant — Ml*. llazeiden. it is the custom to publish (lie names oi the several parties entitled lo Crown grants in tlie public papers. Mr. Leary, solicitor, deposed : 1 issued the summons against the detendant. At \ our . request I waited upon Mr. 11a/.ledcn, the ut'icnd.tUt, to request delivery of the deed. The delendant declined to give it. up unlii the u-ual 11-e was paid. Mr. 11 u/.U'den, Commissioner of Crown Lands, de-p'-siul : 'i'he Crown grant produced relates to SO acres of land granted 1o li. \v. Wynn, ttluate in Tokatoku. 1 camwt say whether the Urnd Act- ol has been in force in the locality of the land the ipuMiou of tirle which is now jil i.-sue. :\lr. \V\nii said he win willing to admit that Tokatoku. wus not in the district. V.y Air. AJerrjiitan : There id an Act authorising llie charge of lids, upon Crown grant:?, which cusUiir lias been in force almost from tlie first day that lam instituted. J rutused to give up tin document to t he phdnuilbecause the lees were no paid. Mr. Warner, recalled : Tlie plauditi ut the ex piraiion ol lite term of three yetito woidu be emi«ic< ;o ieceive his Crown grant. Thn lb;)-* expired ji piaiuliU's euv-e in .September, lco~- ' Mr. "Wyiin, who at tstage of the proceeding

appeared for himself, said Unit the Act stated flint emigrants with laud orders should acquire lauil free ot cost. I Jmvc nut acquired my Crown grant after having waited the time appointed by the authorities, mid 1 bring this action because I believe it is improperly withheld from me. I consider it a monstrous t*x on tlie part ol the New Zealand Government to charge their lees, and I do not believe they have any legal right to do so. In the first instance, before leaving England, the unfortunate emigrant has to pay a feo of one pound on 1:11111 orders, and on his arrival here is further taxed to the amount of £1 13s. Gd. I consider the levy a deception on tlie part of the Grovernment, mid 1 trcirt that your Worship will give such a judgment us to compel tli<- authorities to keep good faith ".nth the public, i iio'-« your Worship will believe me when I' state most chstmcii'y that this action has been brought by mo simply oh public grounds, and not out (if spleen on account of my late' fracas with tin? Government. It is siiTrpiy a question of one pouiui to me, but T iool; upon it & one of the most important question* that can bo raised irt this time with Auckland so rapidly increasing with emigrants ; "j 0 mother country. In some cases the charge would pV munj- pounds, because of the ditleient allotments m a gran*?.- Nothing is staled at home respecting this monstrous tax. ,V. far as regards the legal pi.-t, am! of course (he wiic.Vi' question.is entirely u, legal one, I conceive that 2 have proved my claim, having fuihlled all the rules and recjithuions set lorlh belorc Die gran; is lianded over, with the exception of not paying the leas. I notice in the' of this morning's issue mi a-miouncemeht from the Comnussion, to the ellect that tfus grant of several persons were ready to be delivered upon payment of tees. In my case, as is shewn to-day, this is not (rue, and is a:iof.Jxei- instance of the deception practised on the public. Air. Crawford observed that the defence rested entirely upon the distinct right the Government of Jsew lnul of enacting a scale of fees, 'ibe 7!) th sect-toil of the Act was what lie based his argument upon, l'iit' i'roviiieial Council Act was oulv in fftct. iv schedule. The Government enactment stated " liefc-i-p i'hc delivery of any Urown grant, the sum ot ~os. should be received and paid as a Government lee, and a'so 13s. (id. for the purposes of registration," and this had been enforced, almost from the lirst day ol lancl orders in this colon/, throughout the island. Jle therefore submitted that- the action was entirely without grounds, and mu:-t consequently fail. u udgnient will bo gi von next Thursday. [ M'tJKU V. BI.THELL. Claim £—, i* r »v damage done to a horse belonging lb pl:U]liitl'. Mr. "Wyim for plaintiff, and Mr. 13evcridgc for defendant. Mr. iJunior deposed that he knew tho defendant, iiim on Sunday the f>th September, riding a horse quietly which ho (des."-ui&ht) knew vei'r "Well. Jle had asl<ed him to conic back, but- he refused iC* so. The defendant at the siddi; time \v.*;s engaged in driving cuftie. I gave delivery of the hors;; to the defendant when he purchased it in tlie usual wav. I Hm not certain whether the horse is paid for or not. i cannot say positively whether the defendant had fcoid the horse at that lime or not. PiaintiiT sworn, stated : I purchased the horse from-Mr. .Hunter. Thoicisu running account between Mr. liunter and myself. I instruction ior i;ho horse to he sent to a puddoeu :• wh-on I went to ieteh the horse away ii was nut to be iound. I saw the animal. in another paddock in very poor and had condition. Wheu I bought the horse, lie was in capital condition. I consider the horao was deteriorated in value to the extent of lour or live pounds. J p »id lOs. tor the horse. -By .Mr. Ueveriduc : 1 had sold the horsn to Mr. Croodall, oi'Utahuhu, at the time the horse was used so badly by tlie defendant. Mr. Croodall retried to buy the horse. ♦Joseph iJethell staled : About the V)fh September I got the loan of a lior.se from Mr. .Bryant ior the pur-I'O.-e of taking up some cattle io the Waikato. This wat; the same horse Mr. Jlunter siiw me riding. I tool; tlie horse out of the paddock. I used the horse very well. I did not l-idt* it. fast.—By Mr. "Wynn : 1 took it'm Thursday evening, and returned it on Sunday, I pal it in a stable on Thursday evening. On the Friday i rode t<» the Waikato. 'i'he next day L left him in the paddork all dav. I did not think it v.'as Mr. li unter's business to ar-'k me where 1 was tfoing to. i knew tlie hor.se was in Mr. Hunter's paddock : I took the iiorse he pointed out. — t ; y Mr. : the hui'se was tile tor the journey, i'tit not in the least hull. X used it well during the lime. -Mr. Bryant stated the defendant had asked him to lend the pony in question. " l ' always had the use of it when he required it. It was running in the same paddock. I sold the jiony at Mr. Hunter's sale for .UI Us. (id. 1 have not hcen paid tor it vol. I haw the pony Vvhvn tho defendant brought it hack ; it was not injured in the hast. .Francis JJotliwcll deposed: 1 saw the horse in question before my son Jel't and after his return. I do not consider it was any worse. J udgmont for the plaintill' for tho sum of £20. ltUlil! V. 11AI.L. Adjourned until next Thursday. itCHrKit v. ui'ntc;:. Claim 7s. for breaking a pane of glass. L'laintitV Miid he had seen soni'' hoys heating the defendant, upon which she had picked up a stone and broken the window. Jane (Julverwell deposed: The last witness is my father. 1 was behind the counter of my father's shop and saw the defendant pick up a stone and throw at the window, on the liJtll ol August last. J-iubecca h'erguson corroborated the testimony of tlie last witness. J'.I'.LU Lynch: '1 he defendant occupies a room in inv house. -Mr. I-iogers said that he had been to the bv-vs, and that lie did :iot sic the detendant breaic the window. The defendant, said she had not broken the window. Judgment, for phiintitf. Joseph Dradlev and Jurats Teters were charged with having assaulted the second otlieer of the •Jumna,' on board that vessvl. John Kredciick Jenkins deposed: The prisoners are seamen on hoard the •Jumna,' of which vessel t am the second ojiar. iieiween the hours of -t and (i this morning a boat was lying alongside to lonvev S'lU:: small aniele? of luggage, ilie prisoticr? wished logo in it. 1. reuuesteu Bradley to come on boarii, when he Mruek me, and the ether prisoner di 1 the same. They were drunk at the time. ' da:nes (hrrriek deposed : \am master ot the slnn i ',J 111111111.' The protecutor is teeouil o!l:cer, nudliie ! prisoners articled seamen idtaehei.l to my vessel. { Tlie witness here corr'.-ljorated the evidence ot the prosecutor respect!•-£ the clutrge of'assault.) ilis Worship scidenced the prisoners to eight weeks' with haul labour.