RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume VII, Issue 1901, 18 February 1870, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday. (3oforoThoma-i iienMi-i'", Eeq , ~R.ll.) jrjDGMEXIS TOS PLAINTIFFS. Goldie r. Mitchell, eltiim £2 7s 82. zo > Is sola mid delivered ; Southeast r. \m'l:t.i-'ii, ' eltiim -filft CM 9J, goods snM nud delivered : Jinnee v. iluitray, claim £7 19s 10d, y.iods •old and delivered to be paid ut the rate "f 5s a wee , *; Knso v. Smith, cluim £3 10s, g>o e sol'l and delivered, to bo pni.t a , ; the ruto of 2<V« ,„.■.- »ronUi ; -Hunter v. Trimmer, rlu'-i £2 17* 3il. ROds "old und delivered ; Jack-on and Rune-'H v. Poi Alariro GAA Mining ' 'oni- I t iinj', claim £'O 12a 6d, p'ofp'sio-inl s»rvice» ; \f : . siP.i'3* (r'tlrl Minina: C'--mp:inv v. St..vi;i ; ., clrtim £2 T2-* β-l, 0.r.-! in:..,rr.:i- ; -m JV\-\ t v. 1.".-irv, i-l:iim d?l+ s*, use ami occup iti-in ; McKßiignr v. \\ r nitalco.*ei Prospoctine G-dIJ '.li.ir'iT fompany, plilm £2 !.■; Bi, mooi.U koM ■«>' .\.-Hveaid , Fau!;li-H-Bit;i.isl-. -o!.! -M ih-il-I'OMipiui.v v. Dunn, cluim £8 lOi, «rr urs of .•nil? j ArjiiUUSMKNTS. r.ie<Miwoo:s v. Qiiek, \torrin v. Re'pha-. , -'. for one weuk. M-.ic-Uay v. Hayes, for ii t r:nigh'.. DEFKNDI.D CASES. , Fornnndez v. Mnys.— Mr. Wvnn for pi. in ■ iff. Uγ- iiichmond for tlio defund-mt. lhis , waa the rehe<rino "f c.s», Wl an det-TDiine 1 nbonr. a f>rt'iij;hfc since. Wini culled on Mr. Mac 'ornvek .' h ord'T of'■aliirig j fiv» win no ml-J nof ■Oα v }shy a rehearing should txka proci ilimh , . • <• ptUor case, and why it ehcul.l not, b.- t • <-i iri its turn ns a new cu*n. Mr>Wyim "=u I hilt- il be token ncconiing to it-! mi the li«t. I > is Womhip rule.) ili-.t ii ■? <u bo n> t:iki-n, and the i-ohearing pr-x-ce •<■ '. Mr. "Wyn:., iu opening jho oissi, «iv-i '• ».t ho woml.i J."* '» th" wiiol» of Hit; vii-f.-pruvioii.'l) taken. Ho fonei.r-ro.l th-it nl! '• liuii to j-rovo w»8 ihit the wt.-irf »w > »»!>• property, und for thut purpose he wi,u'.d ir Air. Whi!i»k«sr. lT."le-iPte Whiit-.V-r. (.worn, d.-j.os : ■ ..mi. «.!ici;.-.r. :n of iMOkl-.nd. I iKi-ollMi-t ivn iM>pl'C-> ! »> : ' -p. minion to or.'ct n whiirf :it- the -•"-•►• Mx.rc—nearer th» > orth Hea.l. t • h t mo tho t+ovrt-mnent «r*ve half tho nv.n. f,=r tiiu purpose H was applied for; tl.e-'h h.lf wiiH eubse.-ibod tor. Tt w«s ou-lomur to works on s« -.li tartne. I »* nol avTiir-o that any *:>t-lication was ma<lß f ■ a private wharf. I unders'ood this on« to ior publio purposes. Tho applisutinn ..., payment of the Government half of >\ic c was not made until after the expiration u f ? e

v;-Hri»t" appropriation. Tne reply then made •v -s timt. there were no funds voted for the purpose in the then ourrent year. Another application was made for payment, but was refused on the ground that the wharf was not -nra»rui-t»'l in ao.fr.rdnnCβ with specifications. Pi ligation wai subsequently made to have the mnnogfimßntof the wharf handed over to r.he HigbwvvTJnarrl.buttliftfrovipc'nl Solicitor a>'v; =• i .'•'.:: ■':"■■ - -ul > not be don-. I always urn ,, TJtooii, «!ii"i *n->\ n'lplici'.hni »vra mnl«. that th':' ■- re f>r tiii'-lir; nnrjiosp*. t u\. ii' , i; r.V -.vinrf i:: question is in ! '„!■:■ I in'ixT <:i Aueki -.mi or ucit. !>v Mr. !iic:.;non : : finding th*t they could n■■!■. get T.hn f-incN liir, tin? part'ts prop .-..; I tr> build a whttrf themselves. The first pn.'iniiisirin was given Jato in 1865. The ■t!>;>'ic!ttion for funds in 1856. Ido not '■e' : *>nly understand employiuf? public eervimts and public moovy except for public purpp-<-*. 1 certain'iv did not authorise Mr. N i<;ei (o hui'.d private wharves, although I di I ul in iny power to further the interests of triide at thi! North Shnro. liv Mr. VVyiiTi : Tlif ponniwon was ju9t tin- K;i:m> c« in tim wo of tho etreete, where subscriptions were raised and work was carried on. By the Si'riuh: I/" tliie wharf had bcea priviito r.roocrCy, Mr. Weaver 'oeing a public •■(finer, would not Lave been employed about it. l<. B Woodhntn, Rvrorn : I recollect the wharf in qn?i>tto;i bainsr started. I subscribed £5 towards it. f alweyg understood it was t> be a public wharf for the use of those living at the North Shoro generally, and for the convenience of the atearnere trading there. Ida not consider that spending my subscription in building a private wharf was carrying out my intentions. Alexander AAHeon (another £5 subscriber), sworn pave .-imilar evidence. In reply, Mr. Richmond gave notice that ho intnn.ied to read th'i question of jurindioHon, thfit defendant, aa represent ati Vα of the curcmittui:, claimed the right of ownership, and was justified in the act of throwing off the ropo. The Court observed that there coa'd be ho doubt as the case now stood; the Court clearly had jurisdiction, and defendant had no ehadow of a cluirn to the wbarf ae a private one. Oliver Mays (previous * evidance read) sworn : On two occasions I have orders I vessels away from t..0 wharf, and they hai* obeyed my orders on reference to Captain Burgoss. I granted permission t3 Cobiey to lay down pipe?. He first appliei far leave to ths Government, nr.il was by them referred to mo. ' have put down and repaired tramways, &c. By Mr. "Wrnn : <Vc nro now asking to be allowed to levy toll*. Wβ do not choose to do bo without permi-sion. Captain Burgos?, nwurn, stated : I have charge of ali wharvna under the Harbour Regulations. I hi;7o ro control over the wharf in question. At the time it was erected i; was intended for » public -wharf. It ie within the limits of tho port and harbour of Auckland. .Mr. Richmond and Mr. Wynn here addressed the Court. His Worship said it had been admitted by defondantt that thie wharf was public proproperty. It was in no way shown to have become alienated from the Crown. It was not because the Government hat failed to complete certain arran£«mente, and because eotce private compairfquarrelled with the that therefore the pnbiio were to be interfered with. It wag high time that this sort of thing should be stopped. The evidence was perfectly clear, and a verdict must pass for plaintiff for the sum of Iβ and* costs. North Island Gold Mining Company, v. Howard.—Claim, £2 10t., arrears of calls. Air. Lusk for plaintiff; Mr. HaoOormick for defendant. The whole argument, supported by numerous cases cited on one eide of th& other, was, ae to whether defendant kad actually become a shareholder in the oompaay or not. Mr. Lusk, for the company, contending that he had. Mr. Ma* Jormick holding that, for want of compliance with Certain, clauses of the Aof, both on the part of plaintiffs and defendant, defendant could not be looked upon as a shareholder, and was not, therefore, liable. The other aide bad failed to prwve acceptance ou the of defendant. Judgment was reserved. Jiame v. Robertson. —This caee was allowed to rest on the merits of the last, the evidence being ndmitted. S»mev. Alorrin. —This case was somewhat different to the two preceding ones, inasmuch ae defendant was proved to taken part in the management of the company, having attended meetings oftho company, and seconded a resolution at ono "f them. 1" era however, no evidence of acceptance of shares.. Counsel asjain adire:sed Court, Mr. Lmk contending tha*. JefencUnt was stopped" iCveil if all requ'r-raants hid not been complied witli.'he , ,ul.i not in a court of c juity especially be allo.vei to take advantage of b's own Ort. Judgment reserved. smith v. .-.;•■ Ciaiai, £!0 10.-., calls unpaid and exp'eaose at law on ishares sold. Mr. Coletnau for plaintiff. itc Luak, for ciefeaevnt, state! that there were two print' far the defence. First, that de endant denies having undertaken to pay cals. Secondly, ho denies having sold the enuree ■v.ith the calls paid. • ■■-' air. CoWm in said the action was for Uβ recavery ct£S os., culU, and £1 5,, expend ioi'ur.-td on v-rovious actioun. The eharee s>ll wer,> fifty in the iuokland Oonsoidated Gold* Mining Company. Plaintiff hid re-sold on the condition on whiob. Uβ nad bought, namely, that there weie no ca U due. Had been sue . and judgment otiiained a»ain>t him in that Court for the, culls due, and liad had to pay £10 10a. Plaintiff, eworu iind examined, gave evi-. dem'e t J ihe uoove effect. JL,, admiision, by Mr. Luek, was then pa; in to show that tho shares had been sold wiihiiuc the calls having been previouc'v pat .*, ana ihiit a Lhird party had hid to pay tue calls befor«;b3ing allowed to rank as a ehs*ehoiiler. Drtf.:ndant denied that he had sold on th» c >nii'ioi»;as stilted by the plaintiff. '-'alls w.-r.- O' ver meniioned ut tho time of *ale. <'oui.s.-l adires-ed she Court, Mr Lust (!.nt.ntn)» that the loss sustainad bv pltin- • iir ~d been entirely of hn own carele«neas. M.. Uoleman h<-.ld tHit pla ntiff had done «• ..-i5 whs usual and necessary to protect liiie-li. . rfl T'.« remaining cases were adjourned until -'o diy next. i his -ourt then ro<e at 4.15 p ">•