RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume II, Issue 484, 1 June 1865, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

.. . , , Tuesday. (Before j. "Kpq., J.F./ and J. R. Home, Esq., J.P} JfOX-rAYM'NT OF KiTIH. .Tnnet McKwen nnd John Wilson were summon".!, charged by Mr. Did'anis, Collector to tho City Board, w'th non-payment of rates. 'J he service- of tho summonses being proved, an order vr.s made for the payment of the amounts. Ann Ppulding vrns nleo summoned on (he above charge, bat ( being married' sine- , the service of the summons, tho charge was withdrawn. ABHAU LT. Frank Pomers was (harmed by James Thompson I with asfiiultiug him on Tuesday, the lSth'iiiet., by striking him on tho faco and body and tearing his hair. Mr, I.earv appeared for tho defendant. Janice Thompson, sworn, said : Late on Monday evehinj» I Went into Adams' oyeter shop with a friend to get hVo plates of oysters. Defendant came from tho infi !o of tho lioiiee and placed himsolf in front of where T was eating the oysters Hβ took oil* his coat and rolled up his sleeves and snid. '' For what you have done to the girl. I will give it to you." I told the young mun that was with mo to look out, and if ho saw him strike me to go for the police. He struck n e several times with hie clenched fist on the faco and breast, tearing my clothes off uiy shoulders. My mato taw him striking n e and went for the police, and on the arrival of tho | oliee feveral men came from tho bacK

Cross-examined by ftfr Leary : The girl in question brought an action for assault against mo lately. I gave no provocation to the defendant. I did not take ( ll' my rout to fight him. Morris KlcGr.iro sworn, deposed : I am a labourer. I know defendant. I remember the early part of the leth inetsuit. I was in an oyster saloon with the plain!if?. defendant came into where wo were sitting. He fool; oft' his coat, and said, "If you am a man stand \ip He held both defendants hands with one hand, and struck him repeatedly with the cither, knocking him down on tho brond of hi< bark, keeping him there perhaps 20 minutes. I then went and called a policenvin. Crofri-cxanuned by Mr. Leary : I had no drink that night, except lemonade. Previous to the nssault 1 bad not seen them together.

Robert Alexander Peers said he saw a seufllo but nothing more. Cross-examined by Mr. Leary : I havoseonplaintilV ihciv before. He has asked for Somers. On that day ho a«kod for him. He used such language as induced mo to think he wished to quarrel with Somen*. This was the ense for the prosecution. William Walker sworn, said; I am bur boy at Devonshire Hotel. I saw plaintill' take oll'liis font on the 16th instant, but I did not eeo him fight any body. Defendant tviu ordered to pay n fine of £3 mid costs, or to bo imprisoned for throe months. HKFACH OF TllK MUNICIPAL POLICK ACT. "William Simmons was charged by the Commissioner of l'olico with wilfully obstructing tbo pathway in front of the Prince of Wales Theatre 0:1 Monday evening. The C'ommisfioror said ho brought this charge forward because it was becoming a regular nnisiineo to have the entrance to tlio theatro blocked up by a lot of idlers, :md this practice was not conlined to the thentr« entrance only, but it was impossible to pass the corner of tin . Crescent and other places from the number of people nlwaya col.eeteri there. The defendant defied the polios to remove him when they spoke to him. He merely wanted the tiling to obtain as much publicity as possible, and would bo content if the Court would inflict n 11 merely nominal fine so as to show the public that the police had the power to interfere in those matters.

Mr. r.eveiidge (who appeared for the defendant) said that it was"not generally known that the policemen hud a right to order the people to " move, on." He would r.sk the Court to discharge the man, who had only erred through ignorance Mr. Naughton had acted very properly in brinr-ing the case before tin.! Court, but ho thought it would bo very hard to inflict any punishment upon the defendant uncki'the circumstances. The prisoner considered that hu was '' sticking up for his rights" when he defied the policeman, and not interfering "with tho duties of the policeman. Ho asked for a dismissal without a fine, and he was sure that the object of Mr. Xaiighton would be accomplished by vent being given to the affair through the columns of the press.

Mr. O'Neill ?aid if wns a general compliiint that ladies, especially, -rere often driven to walk in the gutter from tin.' concourse r,f idlers at corner? n» well as at the donrs "f '-lie theatre. The Bench could not iinpese n merely nominal fine, but they would not, inilict the, full penalty. Tlie defendantVas ordered to pay a. fine of -0 shilling and eos:s. Wednesday.

(Before T. Bcckham, Esq., K.M.) THREATEJOXS LAXOTTAGK. Richard Trowlcr was brought before the Bench for usin" threatening language to his wife, Kato Trowler. Prisoner sniil lie was sorry, but that lie had had r. little too much to drink lie was ordered to find two sureties in £30 each, and to enter into his own reco2ni7.nn.ccs of £60, to be of good behaviour for six months. SI'KEDY CAPTI'IIK OF A THIEF. iTfime* Campbell was charged with stealing a silver hunting watch, value £3, nncl a steel chain and key from n room in Graham's Buildings, Fort-street Mnrtineau Burrough, sworn, said : That on Monday night lie lincl occasion to go to Gnihnn's Fiuildings in Furt-strcet. Lelt his coat and waistcoat in a room. 3 T ad 11 bilver hunting watch, with steel chain and toy attached. Witness was absent from the room about half an hour. 110 found hie c»nt and waistcoat in their place, but tho watch and chain were gone In this case the Commissioner of Police was himself the cjptor of tho thief. Ho stated that ho received information that a watch had been stolen from n small apartment in Graham's Buildings, Fort-strict. The Commissioner went at once to the Albion Hotel, West. Queen-street, where he found the prisoner, and asked him about the watch he wanted to sell. Prisoner threw up his anus and said he had no watch. Tho Commissioner searched him and found the watch and chain upon him and handed him over to a constable. The prisoner said he had nothing to eay. and was committed for trial. DF.SEIITIOJ.'. George Smith, a. seaman belonging to the fhip Empress, Captain Ellis, wns charged with deserting his ship. Prisoner was committed for three months, subject to the captain desiring to tako him on board ship before tho term should expire. His Worship proceeded to hear the adjourned civil c-ees. In the ca-e of ?cott r Tierney the mutter was referred (o Messrs. Sanders and Cameron, architects. Warner v. Caiu. claim £1 2s. yd. ; judgment for the plaintiff. - c ibbin v. Bell, adjourned to this day week. Stvak t. Graham, also adjourned to this day week. Watterson v. Donovan, settled out of Court.

A • DEE--ON V. GKAHAM. Oliß IVH3 an action brought ogair>st his Honor. The dispute originated in n question of title, to lease certain liu'tl.i. iVemoranda of iig-eeinent had been drawn out und absent' d to ; but meanwhile tin l i!ei"iidiint. discovered that the title of the plaintiff'was defective, and that upon measurement the land over which the pliiiiitil!"e title exli-ndt-tl did not exceed 15 acres. Defendant tendered £T2. The following evidence was adduced :-- Mr. John Anderson : I am plaintiff in this action. T am proprietor of some land at Miihur.'ingi, Wai worn. The document produced is the Crown grant made nut. in my namo. My land adjoins s>me land owned by the defendant, Mr. Robert Graham. In April 1803, I enter,d into an agreement with Mr. Giahnn regarding a portion of my land. This is one of the agreements. There were two. one signed by ?«fr. Graham, another I)) - inyfelf. Tin's is tinned hr Mr. Graham. Both aorced that a lea e c should bo drawn out by Mr. Ucveridge. Mr. Graham told me (hat lie had executed that lea*e, but I believe ho never lid bo The portion of land leased to Mr. Graham is indicated by a pencil mark on tl'.o Crown grant.

To the Court: It is the western portion, just oppo site the sea.

Witness: t walked over the lines with Mr. Graham, and Rave him possession, employed workmen to fence it off. Ho cut timber on the land which 1 had leased, and removed it to his own lie aKo put oV'ir twenty head of cuttle on it. Mr. Graham hae gfwn mo 2s. werth of potetoe?, for whfch I gsro

Mm a receipt. This ™, „, portion of the '■ Jγ ■', ?■■ ,° w ™ a ' so * 12 10< W( "-th of ploughing. ['■",! \ nnl r tr: '"-»y he owes mo the amount specified ; tor use and occupation of this fend. . < rose-exnmined by Mr. BrooMeld •■ Mr wife is- at «7™ ■", JW"™ , ™ of Oi .t land. Sh"..foofcpoesestioi, subseqnerilly to tho ] Rll se 7 t was in the month of Koptember, ■ .1.8.64, It whb a rt."or two sire' but'T B 7 md f tKelowo. I an not Hmo but I do not thinfe s>, was in the month of T" u R l WCar Bh " did take pomoueion before I mado tho lease to Mr. G.-ahan,. I B i Kne d tbn lease nnd Mr. Bcvori-Jgp toll mo Uat tho lease had been virtually firmed bv Mr. Graham.

(A second agreomont was ro-d in which tho leased land was difterontly defined from that described in doc-nmont previously road.) Witness :• Tho paper last. Trnil war, first signed - Mr. Wvnn romindod tho Court that both tho papers were signed by Mr. Graham. Witness: Mr. Graham i,i m , possession now. My wito is "i possession of the farm: i presume m"v wite and .Uγ. Graham aro in possession, trie latter in capacity of tenant. I ,«iVi,ed the lea«e Mr. BrookTield said ho did not wish to catch the witno-s. He oxplaiuod to the ' ourt that the witnees hud Mnrned an aurocment but not the lease. This wag ugnnd on the Bth of May, 1803. Witness : That i.s so. Immediately after that I put my wife in position of tlie land " Mr. UrooK-field reminded tho Court that the claim tor_nse and occupation was from t-'eptemher, 1803. Wi(ne-s: Tho claim fir prazin?, wiw fn r irrazinp '"."!>' tnvn . era ss paddocks, and not f-rthela d of which iibo und orciipation is claimed Tho rroFs toneo was finished but tho cattle could cot round at either end of it.

80-examined by Mr. "VVynn : The possosnion Riven t'i my wile did not interfere with Mr. Graham's use and ocsupntion. Mr. Graham was in occupation yet. '

Win. Brown, examined br Mr. Wjim : I am a labourer, working in tho bush. I know-Mr. Andorunn's latid at tho Waiwera. I wia nmployerl to got. posts and rails, and put up some fencing. I did so by Mr Robert Graham's instructions. Ho told me to cut the f.ineing from Mr. Ander.-on's land. I cannot exactly say how long this was. It w«H about ,7uly. I-iet year. T was between two and three niont.hu cuffing the timber, rafting it round tho point, and getting it on Mr. Graham's land. There was no pe'son else employed on the work. I tool; it bv tins rod.

JTespio Anderson: lam tho wife of the plaintiff. T am sware of somo disagreement botween Mr. Graham and my husband, respecting tho uso and occupati in of a piece of l.md. Ho otlered my husband £22 for lent, and said that was all he was entitled tn. I think it was in tho latter end of August or September.

Cros3-o-;.iinined by Mr. Brookfiold : Mr. Graham did not sny, if anything was due if, would not exceed £22. Mr. Graham is in possession of tho land. The land has since been made over to mo by deed of conveyance. Mr. Graham's cattlo aro on the land. Thorn aro no cattle belonging to mveelf or my husband, on the land.

Major Cooper : T am the owner of some land adjoinintr tho plaintiff's 1-md. I had a conversation with Mr. Graham, with regard to a. piece of land he had take.ll from Mr. Anderson. I roi-nivcd a lotter from Mr. Anderson, and afterwards had a conversation with Mr. Graham respecting tho land wliieli he said ho leaser! from Mr. Anderson.

Mr. Graham, examined by Mr. Brookfield: Tt is true I entered into an agreement with the plaintiff tc lease certain land. It was 11 memorandum of agreement for tho purpose of having a lease drawn up containing their covenant!". The two agreements were drawn up with this object. I took possession, subject to tho terms of the agreement boini; carried out by Mr. Andersen. I held possession six or eight months. At the end of that period, I took my cattle away. T discovered that a portion of the land which Anderson had agreed to lea-e belonged to tho Crown. The boundaries described in the Crown grant are correct, but the .quantity is over Mated. That is, there is more hind contained within the boundaries than is sfnlid in the Crown crant.

The Bench : That is assuming tho Crown grant to set out 100 acres, there are in reality luO acres contained within the boundaries defined.

Witno s: There were SO acres more than the Crown had given. lam r.ot aware that Mr. Anderson lias ever executed a lease. This is the agreement. Anderson put up part of a dividing fence, but he has never completed it The fiouth line is fenced, with tin; exception of a very little piece. I iJid not give him potatoes or do ploughing for him on account, of the rent. 1 have n receipt crediting me for the potatoes and ploughing.

Mr. HrnoknVhl : I)o you know why it is>, Mr. Gra ham. that in tho receipt", Mr. Anderson merely accredits you with the potatoes and ploughing ?

Wit ess: Mr. .Anderson i< in tho habit, of making out receipts in that- way. .He cives credit tor it, but never pays. Ho once killed a bullock of mine, am! ho gave me credit for it. He did not pay for it. Mr. and Mrs. Anderson applied for a settlement. I told them that the quantity of land which they had power to lence was 22 licres. I said that if they could show a legal title 1 would ahitle by the terms of the agreement. It turns out. that the 22 acres is more than they have power to lease. The real quantity is only '.5 acres. Mr. Anderson would he willing to lease that- quantity, but Mrs. Anderson eaid she would hot have less than the £-JO.

Cross-examined bv Mr. Wynn : There is more land than the plaintiu" has power to lease- There is an alteration in this agreement. This alteration was made after it was nigned. That is very important.

I Examined by the Hunch : Tho alteration in tho agreement curtailed the (jinntity of Innd in tin; grant. Originally it included all 'he land mentioned within tl:e grant. The quantity of land win then an open questi'-n. I have since had it measured. The facts were that Anderson would have the lease include the front of hi-. - house which takes in the whole of his crown grunt. I knew that ho was mistaken, and when tho laud was measured ho would ho glad to come to any arrangement. This accounts lor the smaller quantity being in tho agreement in my possession. Judgment deferred until this day week. OOUDIB V. .STACKPOLE. Mr. Brookfield for tho plaintiff. Mr. Wynn for the defendant. The plaintiff leased from defendant some premises in Beveridge'e Swamp. He took possession in the hitter end of august 1863, and leased the land from Stackp"le, and paid rent to Mr. Katger who wus e'erk in Gilfillan'e. and Trustee to Archibald's estate The first rerit I paid was ?Bth of .September. 4!r. Hatger Rave receipts for rent. The amount paid was £15. There was about £3 ss. due from plaintiff. J'atger advised him to piy tho arrears because he could not get if, from Stackpolo. Stackpole faid he had notli'ng to do with the payment of arrears Mr. Batger proved that the lease was given to Stackpole. Me ca-re a receipt to the plaintill" on account of rent payable. Stackpolo said that he eub-1. ■■-■•-d the ground to Goudie upon the condition of p.-ii .'ng the ■rent then in arrcar. Ko had never paid iiny arrears and hnd nevo' been asked to pay any. The agreement whs put in. ]\lr. Wynn contended tint there was no ease — there wan no evijr-nee of the trust or title set up. Beside* the defendant was never a?ked to pay Having paid £n depo-ir, and £90 clown for good-will, the plaintiff took the land with its liabilities. Judgment for defendant. γ-eep v. m'lisi.T.sr. Mr. Hrnol; field for the defendant. In this ense the lielemlai.t luid employed a person named I'ureei! as rhtimian. Turcejl had to leave, i-.nd sent. i-leed to taku his pUce. It wn-i staled thut Puu-.-ll was at Wunganui. The i-nse for the defendant was. that tho money was due to Vuuvll not to the plaintiff, licfendant was willing to pay the monoy into Court, to be pui J to plaintiff upon producing security from ii responsible per-xm that the defendant would not be called upon to pay the money over ncrain. Tiie case was so settled. Mr. Burdem agreed to ]my. bucklet v. co-rrunßLr. Mr. Hill appeared for the plaintiff; ilr Brookfield i repr.St-nted t!ie defendant. _ _ ' Tim plahviil'ie a bricklayer, and built an oven for j defendant, who is a baker. The defendant alleged ; I hat the work was so badly done as to be ;erfet;ly ] useless. The plaintiff slid that defendant hud dug a ! hole which cause.l the foundations to (rive; also, that j the defendant had begun to b.ike with n a week, be- j for i the oven was dry. The original aroo-mt had been £18 odd, of which £30 had been paid. r J he claim was for £20 odd. The oven having bulged th-: defendant was c-bligcl to have the oven rebuilt, »nd declined to pay the claim. There was a credit of £7 8s , which, the defendant ploodod, roduoed tlio cluitn fro £12.

Henry Prioe, a mason, said he -vvaa employed to build the etone-work, that it .xjuld not be better done. 1 onsidored that the defendant had weakened tho oven. Mr. Brookfield Paid lie did not object to the utone work. • .. ■ ; Defendant said that he did not engage the phvjitiu" to build the oven. Tt was proposed to build the oven by fiver plaintiff. Oef-ndant admitte! baking a. d ; nner in tlie of en the third day after it wnebuilt up, but tin? wnnld nor injure the oven, as he left, tliu-door open. The eid,- walls giive way and the crown fall in. 1 t>iendiuit said the moment witness spoke to him about tH« hole at the rear of the oven, he filled it up ngnin. _ . ' George Orotsch, n bricV'ayer, said lie had beer' employed lately iu rebuilding ah oven for defendant. I here wa» a. " sltewbaek" on tlie wall. There were lumps of loam amongst the hrick work whii:h he could crush with hie hand-. It was about aS bad a job as he had seen for sometime. The bricl-B vera as bad as foulrl be. The crown of the oven wns'Uat, it fayed m. When witness saw it it had caved in. J he plaintiff was nonsuited.