LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIII, Issue 4460, 29 February 1876, Page 5 (Supplement)

LAW AND POLICE.

- Cf s DISTRICT COURT.—MONDAY. [Before Hia Hoaor F. D. Fen ton, Esq., District t Judge.] £ Tiie ordinary bi-monthly sitting of the t Court was held yesterday, and the following t business disposed of : — "V E. and H. Isaacs v. Underbill.—Claim 's« £21 10a. Mr. Elliott Meyer for the plaintiff, Mr. W. H. Kissling for the defendant, b This "was ail action upon a promissory note, n alleged in the declaration to have been made £ in favour of Messrs. E. and H. Isaacs. The action was sent down from the Supreme Court, a 1 as properly coming within the jurisdiction of i* the District Judge. There were four issues a left to the Court, relating to the eireumsfcances in which the promissory note was &] made. The defendant admitted tho making b of the promissory note, but pleaded that no u consideration was given for it. The facts °' were, that when Mr. Edward Perkins was ol about to leave the colony he appointed Mr. st Alfred Edward Isaacs 'his agent;, for certain purposes, amongst others the sale of furni- p: ture, effects, &c. It appeared, however, te that Perkins occupied some room, or r€ rooms, at Underbill's house, and the P defendant now pleaded that Perkins C( was indebted to him to the extent of £10 2s uj for such occupation. The furniture belonged In to Perkins, and Mr. A. E. Isaacs told the defendant he might have the furniture for £IQ 2s, which was the amount that Perkins owed . him, and he (Mr. Isaacs) would be satisfied with the defendant's promissory not©. The defendant gave a promissory note for the amount to 35. and H. Isaacs, who forwarded w the amount to Perkins, and now claimed on bi the promissory note. The defendant pleaded e> further that the note was made for -the ac- qi commodation of A. E. Isaacs. This defence as was denied, and a witness was put into the d< box to depose to the general- facts, but he se could not speak to the questions on the issues. The reply to theallegation that the pßomissory £', note was without consideration, and made for to the accommodation of Mr. A. E. Isaacs, pj was that the furniture sold to defendant was st the consideration for the bill. It was arged pi for the plain tiff that none of the averments tl made in the defendant's pleas had been w proved in evidence, and there was no answer h. made out to the plaintiffs case. Mr. "V 7. it H. Kissling submitted that the proper parties ii to [sue were not Messrs. E. and H. Isaacs, J but Mr. Alfred Isaacß,. with ..whom/the tran- w aaefcion took place, and who had been ad- a mittedly the agent of Pedrins. In cons«< 6

72, quen.ce of the course which Had been for adopted, the defendant was deprived of the rer right to put in as a set-off ; the debt due.to ich him from Perkins. •He Held Perkin's furhi--3— tare on accoantot rent for that amount, and she the. giving a pronjissory.nofce was practically to "without consideration.' His Honor 1 said he ex- would take time to consider his decision, irs The circumstance of the agent of a person lis out of the colony becoming possessed of cerin tain security for trust money, which then ar, became, by the effect of a promissory ik- note, transferred to his firm, gave a r er legal aspect to the real issue, which '00 the Court must consider carefully, iy, Bebry v. Clarkson. —Claim, £50. Thisof was an action in trover. The facts have iat been at various times published, having been ch the subject matter of two previous actions ay at law—one in the Supreme Court, and the x- other before the late District Judge (Mr. >st Beckham.) Berry was a contractor under m Messrs. Brogclen, for building bridges and du culverts upon the Tuakau and Mercer secix tion of the Waikato railway. Certain mateor rial, such as sand,'stone and cement had been li« left on the ground by O'Neill and Thomas, of the previous contractors. This material Iy was handed over to Berry, Berry had a or dispute with the Government Engineer inq. specting the work, and he was put off the id line, and the defendant, Clarkson, took the Ce contract to complete some portions of the k- work left unfinished by Berry ; and the prelt sent action was to recover the value of the sy stone used by the defendant, which formed — part of the stone handed over by Brogden's people to Berry, the plaintiff. The way in re 5 which Berry's claim to the stone arose was is j as follows :—"When Berry was turned off the il line, Brogden brought an action against him ' 0 for curtain portions of the stone, and recovered g a judgment for £67. Berry then brought an ie action against Messrs. Brogden for breach 't of contract, and obtained a verdict against d them with £250 damages, and in satisfying e the verdict they made their judgment for e £G7 a set-off in reduction of the sum payable, y This stone was now alleged to have been e used by the defendant Clarkson in his conr tract, Berry having paid for it in the manner 1 above described. There were no less than v six witnesses to trace the history of this l stone. The defendant deposed that he took - f no stone belonging to the plaintiff. It ap- < , peared there was a good deal of "turning ] ; down" stone, and considerable competition ■ r for the oontracfcs for such work. Some of 1 b the witnesses deposed that the stone claimed ] . by Berry was used in another contract, and i • not in Clarkson's. The defendant also de- i i pobed that the stone used, was stone bought i • from a person named Pillar. The counsel < i said if this were so, Clarkson should have < 5 Pillar a3 a witness to prove his title.—His 1 Honor, after considering the evidence, gave i • a verdict for the plaintiff for £12 10s, with i • costs, £7 lis. i • ( POLICE COURT. —Monday. ' [Ceforo R. C. Baratow, Esq., R.^r.] t Drunkenness.—Three persons, for this s offence, were dealt with in tho usual 8 manner. t Drunk and Disorderly. — Michael 8 Tower pleaded guilty to a charge of this ? nature, and was ordered to pay a fine of 10s 11 and Is 6d costs, or in default to undergo 4S t hours' imprisonment, with hard labour. Vagrancy.—Mary Ann Long was charged J with having no lawful visible means of support- Prisoner pleaded not guilty. Constable Graham and Detective Grace gave evidence ?i in support of the ease. The accused was r engaged in a fight with another woman, in a right-of-way off Graham-street, when ar- 7' rested. They were both undor tho in- j? fluenco of drink. The Banch inflicted 1 a sentence of two months' imprisonment, with hard labour.—Harriet Pierce, is the antagonist of the prisoner in the preceding case, pleaded not guilty to a charge of having no lawful risible means of sup- i ' port, and with being a rogue and vagabond, i she having been previously convicted as an - idle and disorderly person. Constable Gra- 1, ham and Detective Grace deposed as to the ,p circumstances under which the woman was g arrested. She was a common prostitute. For the defence, a man named Jiggerton, 11 master of the cutter Waterlily, was called. ?j. He stated that he had kept the woman for j the last twelve months, paid the rent of tho house, and supplied her with food. Was not aware that anyone was in the habit of visiting her during his absence. His brother y called occasionally, in order to have his J clothes washed. Witness was at present 1 earning £7 per week. Detective Grace was q re-called, and deposed that Eggerton was in ' the habit of loafing about the prisoner's place. He did not contribute to her support. This was nil the evidence, and the 1 Bench sentenced the accused to two months' imprisonment, with hard labour. Harbour Regulations. — Henry Hoi- l al brook pleaded guilty to a breach of the lc harbour regulations, by charging more than A< the ordinary fare, he being a licensed water- fa man. He, however, urged in extenuation Ct that he was not aware of the right time ha when he made the charge, watermen being tli allowed to charge double fare after 8 o'clock. m( Mr. J. H. Russell appeared for the prosecu- he tion. The Bench inflicted a fine of 20s, and a £1 16s costs. f r( Volunteer Act.—Thomas Stringer np- Ci peared to answer a charge of having committed a breach of' the above Act, by m : unlawfully levying toll upon a vehicle in th which were being conveyed a Volunteer w officer and several of his men in uniform. a o; Mr. Tyler appeared for the defendant, and en stated there were a number of objections gti which must prove fatal to the case. One bu was apparent, in the fact that the informa- yi, tion was .laid under the 28th section of the l e] Act o£ 1865. It was neither shewn that A( the Volunteers were on duty at the time, nor th that there were not other persons, not Volunteers, also in the vehicie. Mr. Rus- bli •sell replied on behalf of tho prosecution. f a ] The Bench considered the objections raised u' o by Mr. Tyler fatal, and accordingly dis- a i missed the case, prosecution paying costs, ar i i £2 13s Gd. glj ! Assault.—McDonald was charged with no assaulting Copland, at Otahuhu, on the 19th he ' inst. On the application of Mr. Joy, the c ]j case wa3 adjourned till Thursday. m j Railway By-laws.—William Trevena pe appeared before the Bench charged with a be breach of one of the above by-laws by making th use of abusive language to one of the railway officials. Mr. Joy pleaded guilty on behalf be of the defendant, but, in doing so, stated be several palliating circumstances as a set-off. t; c Mr. Brookfield, who was retained for the T.-n prosecution, said that offences of this charac- a u ter were becoming of such frequent occur- 0 £ rence that for the future he should always ar< press for the heaviest penalty. The Bench jj< considered the defendant was not justified T1 tinder any eircumstauces in using bad Q a language, and therefore imposed a fine of 40s Bnl and £2 8s 6d costs. p a —; — to PAPAKTJRA R.M. COURT.— MOJTDA*. | rßefore Thomas Jackson, Esq-, K.M.] Assault.—Robert Begbie was charged on with having struck his father, Frederick Beg- N< bie, at Pukekohe, on the 21fft instant. The bu evidence disclosed that this was a, family thi quarrel of long standing, and that the is assault complained of was committed in m; defence of his mother, and when struck him- shi self. Case dismissed. So

Civil Cases.—Begbie v. Begbie. Claim, £9 12s 6d. This case was fos the price of two steers sold by the son, by [the order of his parents, at Buckland's sale on the 16th instant, and the evidence shewed that the proceeds of the sale were brought home by the son that day, and given to Mr. Begbie, who had the money, and that the son never had made anr elaim for the money, or had it in his posrtion longer than was occupied in bringing it from Papakura to Pukekohe. Judgment for defendant.—Watson v. Goodwin. Claim, £2 12s 6d. A Bet-off of 16s admitted. Judgment for plaintiff, £1 I&* 6d* costs, !&.-