MAGISTRATE'S COURT.—Thursday.

New Zealand Herald, Volume II, Issue 348, 23 December 1864, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT. —Thursday.

(Before 'JQiomas Beckham, Esq., K.M.) DBUNJCDNNESS. Michael Ryan, Catherine Burke, Robert Morgan, William Blackmore, Thomas McXivoy, John Williams, Andrew Taggart, William Sutton, and George Quitin, charged with this offence, were treated in the usual manner. DESERTION. John Turner stood charged by Joseph Walker, of the 'Albert William,' witli having deserted irom that vessel. The accused pleaded guilty, aud was ordered to be imprisoned for 12 weeks with hard labour. Civil Cases. vrxyx v. hazl&den. Judgment was given in this ease. His Worship observed that the plaintiff sought to recover a sum of £60 damage for tho alleged illegal detention of a Crown grant by the defendant, who relied for his defence upon the fact that the plaintiff refused to pay certain fees which the defendant contended were made valid by the Lands Regulation Act. It had been proved that the plaintiff hud arrived hero and had iulfilled all the stipulations required by the land agents for tho Government- grants in the province of Auckland. The plaintiff' commenced this action under tho 9th clause of the regulations, which is to the eli'cct that the laud shall be acquired free of cost. The 69tli and 19th clauses made certain restrictions and conditions, but in every instance those restrictions were followed by tho words " shall be entitled to a Crown grant," and these words may readily be. ' inferred to mean that the grantee shall be in the same position as if lio had become an actual purchaser, and in that position is of course liable to tlio fees levied by Government. Another clause although rather clumsily worded, onacted ■ that the registration fee— 13s. td. —was compulsory. In looking at tho whole of the Land Regulations no other conclusion could be arrived at than that persons arriving with land orders here were placed in the same position as if the grantee had attended and bought the land at auction. His Worship remarked that this was a most important question, and lie should only be too happy to hear that an appeal had been lodged against his decision. SMITH V. BURT. This was an adjourned case. His Worship ordered the plaintiff to be nonsuited. v

PEARCE V. HABHIS. Adjourned on application of Mr. Bevcridge, with consent of Mr. J. IS. .Russell, until Thursday week.

SI'ITTLE V. .MORRIS. Cluim £3 55., balance of account for board and lodging. Defendant did not appear. Judgment for plaintiff. SAME V. A. STEWART.

Claim, £13 17s. Gd., balance of account for board and lodging. ]S 7 o appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff. lU.NOWALL V. IH'RIvE. Claim, £3 35., for goods told and delivered. Defendant did not appear. Mr. Beveridge appeared for tlio plaintiff, and obtained judgmentBEDDOZS V. BELSHAM A>'D ANOTKEB.

No appearance of plaintiff. Case nonsuited, yrith coats.

SPEAKJIAX V. Hlli. In this case Mr. Beveridge confessed judgment on behalf of the defendant, and applied for time.

The plaintiff objected to this, but ultimately agrwcl to accept payment ill three instalments, the first to be pud at once. .. . . . . / OTLMAN X. Br.ACKlltfKS'. . ' Claim £1 83. Gd.', for goods sold and delivered." No appearance of defendant, and judgment for plaintiff. . . . . : BEID v. coe. • ' Claim £9 16s, amount of dishonored 1.0.TT. _ Defendant did not appear, and judgment recorded for plaintiff. ' ■FniSER V. JAMES " In tliis case tha defendant confe'ssed-judgment. MuriiEY geoesb cbtiiiJS.' ' Claim £3 10s, balance of account for board and lodging. Defendant did not appear. Judgment for plaintiff. ' - '• ** '■ M'CAXTL, V-.'StANTOS. •• Mr. VTyini confessed judgment on behalf of the defendant. ' ■ dkubt y. SAM.' '* Claim £2, for cash lent. ' ' So appearance of defendant, and judgment for plaintiff. . lyes v. smith.. Claim £1 Is 7d, for goods sold and delivered. Defendant did pot appear, and judgniont for plaintiff. . . WATT V. TICKERS. j Claim £6 Bs, for goods sold and delivered. No appearance of defendant, and judgment recorded for plaintiff. BATTBAY V. SAME. A claim of £.1 9a Bd, for cash lent, and. goods sold and delivered. Judgment for plaintiff. HAMTTOK V. SAME. Claim £13 Is, for goods sold and delivered. Judgment for plaintiff. HIGOINS V. LXLLEWALL AND ANOTHER, HUNT V. KAMS AND ANOTHER, SOMEBVILLB V. DENHAM. These cases were adjourned by consent until Thursday week. SOMERVILIiE Y. BIRMINGHAM. Claim £12 2s. for guano supplied. Defendant did not appear, and judgment for plaintiff. WILSON v. SPEEDT. Adjourned until this day .fortnight. HARTSHORNS V. KEANE. Adjourned to same date. DUNN V. JAMES. .

An action to recover the'sum of £12, being balance uf account for pigs sold and delivered to defendant. Mr. Wynn appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Brookfiold for the defendant.

John deposed: I was formerly sergeant in the 70th Kegiiuent, and am now settled at Panmure. In October last, I sold the defendant 13 pigs at £2 2a. each. I only delivered ten of them at different dates. I received £ii on account from my son, who obtained tho amount from the defendant, and tho Lalance £12 is still due to me. I havo seen the defendant once since the sale, and had a conversation with him about the matter. The defendant then said that he had nothing to do with tho payment, in consequence of which I summoned him to recover the amount of my claim.

By Mr. Brook-field: I made the sale about the 21st of October. Tho defendant stated that ho had not accommodation to receive all the pigs at once, and it was agreed that he should take them away at Lis convenience.. One or two were killed.before they were delivered. The dogs worried one to such an extent that I had to kill it, and sent it over to the defendant dead. On the 31st of October I delivered three pigs. One was dead, and the other a little hurt about the ears. My son told, mo that the defendant had quarrelled about one pig being a little torn. On tho 4th of November three pigs were delivered, of which number one was dead. On thai date the defendant paid the £5 on account. By Mr. "Wynn: It was arranged tliat the pigs should be caught by the dogs. "When 1 received the £5 1 had delivered ten pigsJamcs Dunn : I am son of tho last witness. I delivered the pigs to the defendant. On the 24th of October the defendant gave mo £4, and said he had no more money in the house. He also .gave me a note to my father, which I wrote for him and read to him. I was also present on the other occasions when the pigs were delivered. X received £5 at another time as part payment of the pigs. By Mr. Brooklield : Two pigs that I delivered on the 31st of October were only a little torn by the dogs, and one was obliged to be killed. On this occasion the defendant complained generally of tho condition of the pigs. By Mr. Wynn : A. person named Jackson bought the pigs for the defendant, and never complained of 1 the treatment of the pigs. Michael Casey: 1 resido at Panmure with the plaintiff. I was present when the pigs were caught on two occasions. Jackson never made any complaint about the manner the pigs were caught by the dogs. On one occasion a pig was so much torn that it had to be killed.

William James (a Chinaman), the defendant, vas put into the witness-box, wlio deposed: A man named Jackson bargained with the plaintiff for sixteen pigs lor me. On the 24th. October three pigs were delivered, of which number, one was dead, and the others very badly torn. I told the plaintiff's son that the pigs were not fit for anybody, to which he replied that ho could not possibly help it. On this day I paid him £4 for the threo pigs, and said that I would not pay for any more if they came in such bad condition. A few days after, four more pigß were delivored in very bad condition, and I told the boy that they were not fit for <1 dog, and that I would not luivo them. Jemmy and the man tied the piga to tho stye against my will, and. I said that I would have nothing to do with t:.em. Jemmy said ho " would make o write to his father that I never pay for dead pig." I declined to sign my name to what he wrote. " I cut up dead pig to feed live pig, and live pigs afterwards die." 1 paid £5 for the three live ones, and refused to take the dead pig. By Mr. "YVyna : I don't know what bargain Jackson made on my account. I will swear Jackson did not go to Panmuro to fetch the pigs., Mary Jackson deposed: The defendant - resided in my house at Otahuhuin. the months of. October and November last. X remember some pigs being delivered in October. One was dead and totally unfit for use, and the others delivered in bad condition. Tho next three pigs were very much torn about, and my husband had to kill one, and another died and was buried. These pigs were not used for food, and the other four were in bad condition.

By Mr. "SVyrm.: Ido not know whether my husband was servant to the defendant or in partnership with him. I do,not know whether my husband went to Panmure or not. I did not eat any sausages about that time.

The .Bench remarked that it was evident soma sharp practice had been the fate of the Chinaman, and deducted the price for the three dead piga, giving judgment for plaintiff for £3. WEEBY V. VTSIJIY. Mr. Merriman appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Beveridge for the defendant. Thomas Welby deposed : I know the defendant, Margaret Welby I now in Courts On or about the 21st of September I entered into a contract with the person who, I believe, was the husband of defendant. Mr. Beveridge applied for the particulars to be amended, and declared he was quite taken by surprise. The Court ruled that the' particulars must be amended, and adjourned the case until this day fortnight. FBASI V. GBAHAiI. This was an action brought by the late engineer to the City Board of Commissioners, against Mr. David Graham as chairman of the Board, for the recovery of tho sum of £35, and the claim 'ariseß ont of a previous action brought by Mr. Hawkeswood against the present plaintiff (in which judgment was obtained by Mr. Hawkeswood) to recover a B'imilar amount, for certaiu mouldings ordered by and delivered to the plaintiff, on the alleged account of the' City Board. Mr. Brookfield for the plaintiff, and Mr. Merriman for tho defendant.

G-. B. Frazi deposed: In tlio months of July and August last I was holding, and still hold, an appointment as engineer to the Uifcy Board. On the 26th of July I made a certain report, which, appears in the public newspapers. In my capacity I'had to male reports froth time to time, as to the state of the city. On the 19t!i of July I made a report to the Board; the report now produced is the one I sent- in. (The report was here read.) After sending in the report, X received certaiii instructions dated 27th July, signed by the clerk, John Ogilvie, in' which I am authorised to procure certain gratings, in order ta carry out suggestions.made by ine in my report. It was first .of all necessary, in order to carry out those instructions, to have some patterns made to mould ; them from'. A inan named Hawkeswood made tho 1 patterns for me. I swear most positively that it wis i impossible to make the gratings without tiiO;'i mould* ' ings. Some time afterwards Mr* Hawkeswoocl

brought an action against me, and recovered £35, and £5 10s law cOßts. I swear most positively that the mouldings were ordered on aocount of the City Board, and the clerk has now possession of them. Xsy Mr. Merriman: I received a the Board telling me X might take all my rubbish away. I have been told that X could take away tho mouldings when I chose by the clerk. The account produced is in my handwriting, and tho report produced is one I sent in to the Board. (The Clerk of the Court read the account of the mouldings and the roport, which was of considerable length). I was awaro that the City Board woro getting castings at the time from Vickery and Masefield. Tho patterns were unlike those I now seek to recover payment of. I had no other authority to order the castings, but the general power to order anything between the days of sittings to the extent of £10°, which appears in the minutes of the City Board. I do not recollect being told that I might tako away all my property from the room I formerly occupied, I never told tho clerk that tho Board would not be troubled with the mouldings, sir. Vialou did not lend mo the patterns from which those castings were made. The patterns for tho price of which I now suo did not belong to me but to tho Board. The pattern for gratings which I ordored are similar to those now adoptod in London. Thoro was no restriction upon me as to what I should order as engineer below tho sum of £100. Alexander Bruce: lam a pattern maker. I recollect making some patterns for Mr. Hawkeswood some time ago. I helped to carry them to the City Board. They wore ordored by Mr. Frazi, andwero of value £35.

J. R. Vialou, deposed: X am an architect and engineer by profession, and have had some experience hoth in. tho old and new country. I have liad occasion to order patterns frequently. In the ordinary -way when only a small quantity of castings are required, the price for the patterns is generally included in the castings. I brought out tho patterns from England, they do not resemble any othors in use in New Zealand. I cannot form an idea as to the cost of tho patterns here. X should consider any order given by the Board small. Ido not consider tho dofondant's small.

John Ogilvio: lam clerk in tho employment of tho City Board. I was acting as clerk when Mr. Frnsi was appointed engineer to tho Board. I remember tho roport which has been produced and read in Court being sent in by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had no verbal instruction from tho Board to order the castings in dispute from Mr. Hawkeswood. I had a conversation with the plaintiff about those models. I remember the plaintiff said " The City Board will never be troubled with them."

By Mr. Brookfield: Tho plaintiff did not say anything about charging for tho patterns with tho gratings.

By the Court: The plaintiff had no authority to order articlos for the Board to the extent of £100.

This closed the case. Judgment deferred until next Thursday. DCCB AND SMITH V. £. SMITH.

Mr. Lcary in this case, confessed judgment for .£IS.

CHISHOIM V. BORTHWICK, Adjourned until this day fortnight. STUTFIELD V. VIALOU.

Claim £1 10s, amount of one week's wages. Mr. Brookfield appeared for the defendant.

"Edward Stutfield deposed: X was in the employment of the defendant. I was engaged to make myself generally useful. I was working at the Auckland Hotel for about two weeks. I was discharged without warning, and therefore claim one week's wages.

By Mr. Brookfield: The superintendent of the kitchen paid me 30s on the Saturday morning. I had been working up to 9 o'clock on the Friday evening. I was paid by the day at the rate of os, but I was engaged by Mr. Hill, the defendant's manager, by the week.

C. P. Passett deposed: I am kitchen manager in the employment of the defendant. The plaintiff has been working off and on during the time I have been there. X believe he was engaged by the day. X remember paying him 30s by desire of Mr. Vialou, which was the amount of his wages up to that time. •The plaintiff, I don't think, came to work on the Saturday morning, and not until the Monday. "When I paid him the 30s on Friday evening, I told the plaintiff that he would not be required again. By the plaintiff: I did not pay you the 30s. on the Saturday morning. J• R. Vialou, deposed : The plaintiff was engaged by me to do odd jobs at ss. pel day. Mr. Hill, my manager, had no authority to engage servants at that time. I gave Passett 30s. to pay the plaintiff for six days, and desired him to inform the plaintiff that his services would not be required again. Judgment for defendant. HAUSON V. SHOEMACK. The defendant in this case confessed judgment for £4 15s. 6d., including costs. IE BEST r. DONCn.USE. Claim, £6 for wages. J. E. lie Bert deposed : I was employed by the defendant as pressman on the 17th of November last, and I worked until the 30th, which is two weeks exactly. I applied for my money, and the defendant then refused to pay me, alleging that I was incompetent to do my work. By the defendant: I was working every day, doing presswork for you. James Ellis deposed : I know plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff was employed in the defendant's office. He did not work all day during the time. The defendant called Gr. K. Stewart, who deposed, that the plaintiff could not pull the " bar," not being sufficiently strong, and was only engaged upon trial.

Another witness deposed that the plaintiff was engaged as pressman, and that he was perfectly incompetent to perform his work; £3 per week was about average wages. — Donchaise : I am proprietor of the Auckland Evening Fost. I took the plaintiff on trial on the 17th of last month as pressman. I could see at once that the plaintiff was perfectly incompetent to do his work. He was away several times, and only worked on and off. I will swear positively that the plaintiff did not do any work on the day the paper was first published.

By the plaintiff: I never offered you £2 ss. per ■week. I would not give you 30s. I took you on trial without any promise of payment whatsoever. Judgment for plaintiff, for £i. PENNY BROTHERS V. DRINNEN.

Claim £15 95., for money received on account of plaintiffs, and cart wheels sold to defendant. Mr. Beveridge appeared for plaintiff. Defendant did not appear. Edward Penny: lam one of the plaintiffs in this action. I authorised defendant to collect a sum of money due t° me—£9 10s. The defendant admitted to me that he had received that sum. I sold this defendant gome wheels for £5, and I swear that this sum is now due to me. Judgment for plaintiff. There were several other cases set down for hearing, but were adjourned until next court day. MILITARY DESERTER. Peter Turner pleaded guilty to having deserted from the 57th Regiment, and was ordered to be handed over to the Main Guard. This closed the business of the day.