LOW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIII, Issue 4488, 1 April 1876, Page 3

LOW AND POLICE.

■ RESIDENT: MAGISTRATE'S CtfURT.; Fktday. ' C. ( Barstow, Esq.,•β-jl.] . The ordinary weekly- sitting of this Court jwas r held.,this morning, aud the following 'business disposed of':— '•'• :: ■'■ ' " Judgments fob Plaiijtiffs.—W. Lockhart y. H. F...W. Colson, £13 os6d; Charles Kayhor y. Thomas Hopkins; 1 : £l3 7s Sd (to be paid>at =£2 a month) ; Patrick' Martin v. Louis Fournier,' £3 ss. ■* V • ■ Adjourned.—Ho'land and Butler v. Finley, £1 I6s; Harbour Board v. Palmer, £4 10s 3d: Lewis Joseph v. Butler and Mclnnis, £5 15s. Hansa v. Wade.—Claim, £110s 9d. This case was adjourned from the last sitting of the Court in order that fresh evrdence might be brought. The p.'aintiff and the defendant were in positi <-e conflict as to tbe fact oi any goods beiug suppl-'ed after a particular date. The witnesses now brought were the plaintiff's wife, who served the goods, aud the defendant's n : ece. who ohtaiued them. Plaintiff's wife said she entered the goods in the book when they were obtained, lhe niece said she paid for them. The question at issue was a balance of account. His Worship,'-having consideredxthe evidence, gave judgment for the plaintiff, with costs, £1 lls 6d. . • Taylor v. Melton-.—Claim, £3 lGs. Mr. Joy for the plaintiff; ilr. T. Kissling aud Mr. Dufaui- for the defendant. The plaintiff, Captain of the Sir Grey Cadets, was sued by a tailor for the uuiforms supplied to the corps, and judgment obtained against him. He now sued the father of one of the Cadets for the amount due for a single uniform. The defence was that there was no contract or authority by the father, and that there was an agreement between the Cadets and the captain to the effect that, upon certain fees paid at entering, and the price oil shako and cap, aud by attending seven parades annually, the uniform belonged to the Cadet. ■ The case was part heard last Court-day,'and the facts were detailed in the ' ordinary report of proceedings. It was in evidence at the last hearing that the plaintiff had received £159 capitation allowance. Ho now produced an account, from which it appeared that he had paid £105 on account of uniforms, and for caps and shakos£s3 9s Gd. The Kawau trip of 1572 was set costing £16 lls, and the second trip, inlS73,, a'. £26 16s. The expenditure of all kinds on account of the corps was. £322 7s Id. The ■assets were set down at £39 5s 6d, against which was to be set. £31 due tp Saunders, and other smaller debts, and on account of whieli the present action was brought Tho plaintiff said there was a " promise" that the capitation money received wou!d be applied to the payment for the uniforms, but the 'Cadets were to be severally liable for the balance, if any. It was averred by the defendant, and not denied by the plaintiff, that money belongingtothe funds of the corps was applied'to the cost of certain "trips" to Kawau, but the plaiutiff said all sundry expenditure iwas according, to the resolution and vote of the corps. It was also alleged, that the defendant's son had not attended all the parades (having nrssed one), and therefore forfeited his claim to the uniform. Notice of ducts tecum had been served on the plaintiff to produce the written agreement, but he said he had no writte.i engagement. The "promise" isferred to had been written, but he destroyed it when the time was up, thinking it to be of no use. Ernest "Lipscomb deposed that he joined the cadets, and paid 10s, ss, and 2s, and signed a paper "to the effect that by attending drill seven times each year, for two years, the uniform belonged to tlie cadet in each case. David Simpson, another cadet, gave similar evidence, but there was considerableuncertainty caused, by some of these witnesses not being able to speak to date. Ernest Melton was recalled, and admitted that he made a mistake 'in saying that the agreement was signed in 1574. It should have been 1873. He added that a paper was signed each year; The plaintiff had brought no less than ten witnesses to rebut the agreement set up, but the counsel for plaintiff contended that no agreement was made in 1574, aud there -was nothing, consequently, to rebut. The defendant was called, and said he had never been i consulted as to his son joining the cadet corps, and did noi therefore object. He understood from his son that the uniform was his, because he had attended drill. The boy's words were, that he " would not give : them up; having earned them." Never made any contract •to - supply his son ; with uniform. .. A considerable time was occupied with, an examination of the accounts, and it was suggested that the capitation for one particular year was not entered under that head. The plaiutiff, in answer, said it was divided among several cash payments, w'lich were entered. His Worship said it was remarkable that, while, young Melton was hold to be liable for the whole amount of his uniform, there was none of the capitation which would have fallen to his share credited to him.' That did not seem equitable. His Worship was also of opinion that the whole of the evidence was confused and uncertain as to the date of any agreement. A witness named Hatma, also a cadet, was examined, but he placed the whole question as to date still more out of view of the Court. His Worship, said the whole thing was extremely confused. A witness named Yates, ; also a cadet, was called, but he could speak with no greater certainty. Counsel on both sides resol/ed to leave the whole matter to the decision of the Court. His Worship thought the plaintiff was entitled to recover something. £1 had been paid, for which no credit had been given, and young Melton was entitled to a share of the capitation money. Judgment for plaintiff for £1 16s, aud costs £6 Sa Gd.

Taylob, v. Campbell.—This case was similar to the above, but the uniform had been.returned. The ease was withdrawn. This concluded the business.

POLICE COURT.—Trii ay.

[Before Dγ. Home and C. C. McMillan, Esq»., Justices.-, Drunkenness. —Three persona for first offences, and one for a second offence, pleaded guilty, aud were punished in the ordinary way. Indecent Assault. —Thomas Mulvaney was charged with indecently assaulting, on. the 31st March, Fancy Bowman, with intent to ravish her. On the application of Mr. Broham, the case was remanded till Saturday. City Bt-caws. —Josiah Trirtley pleaded guilty to a breach of by-law No. 1, by allowing building materials to remain on the footpath in Hobson-street. Mr. R. Bartley appeared for defendart, and pleaded guilty on his behalf, urging, however, iu extenuation, that before setting the men to work to effect some slight repairs to a building, he had sent one of them to Mr. Anderson, the City Surveyor, for a permit, but that gentleman not being at his office at the time the man called, the work was proceeded without one. Inspector Broham said that under these circumstances, and considering that a permit had been obtained on the following day, he would be satisfied with a nominal penalty. A fine of one shilling and costs was then imposed.— Walter Long was charged with a breach of the same by-law, by allowing the chimney of hi 3 house in Union-street to be on fire. Defendant pleaded guilty, and was fined 2s 6d and costs.—Thomas Collis was similarly dealt with for a like offence in Coburg-street. Municipal Police Act.—William Burton was charged with a breach of this Act, by allowing a cow to wander on the Kyber T?ass Eoad. Defendant did not appear to answer the charge, and it was proved in his absence by the evidence, of Constable Jackson. A fine of 10s and costs was inflicted. Licensing Act.—David Cleary pleaded guilty to a breach of this Act, by being drunk 5n the New North Boad on the 26th instant, and was fined 5s and costs, with the alternative of 24 houra imprisonment with hard labour; •