LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVII, Issue 5931, 19 November 1880, Page 6

LAW AND POLICE.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Thursday. IDefore J. E. Macdonald, Esq., E.JI ] The weekly sitting to hear and determine small debt claims was held this morning, and the following business disposed of: William O'Neill v. John- Fostkp..— His Worship gave judgment as follows :—The plaintiff became possessed of a parcel of gum, part of which he, on the authority of the defendant's verbal license, dug in land which the defendant may bo taken as owning, the residue having been acquired by purchase from a person who had himself dug it under a like verbal license from the defendant. The entire parcel was taken out of the plaintiffs possession by the defendant in the assertion of an alleged right to a lien for securing payment of—first, a store account owing by the plaintiff, and then a "royalty" of Is per ewt. The plaintiff admitted it to have been a condition of his license that he should deal at the defendant's store and pay up his account, the amount of which he tendered after seizure of the gum. On the suggestion of a mediating constable, the defendant, after some hours' detention, relinquished the save one bag. retained as being of sufheient value to cover all claims. Owing to this detention the plaintiff

set up that he was too late for that day's Auckland steamer, and while the gum wa3 necessarily left on the wharf until a succeeding day, rain, which might otherwise have been escaped, came on and damaged it. It is under these circumstances the plaintiff claims to recover the value of the gum still detained, and 5s per cwt. on the residue for depreciation by the exposure to rain. Xow, apart from the fact that the agreement, as relating to an interest in land, should haTe been put into writing, it is not pretended that it was made a condition of the verbal license that the defendant should have a right to possess himself of such gum as might be dug oil his land, as security for either ro3 T alty or store account; and as no such stipulation would be implied, it is clear that the defendant was wrong in dispossessing the plaintiff. As to damages. If the gum were perishable by rain, plaintiff should have been provided with means of protection ; but, apart from that, such damage would be too remote, but as the plaintiff has had to pay a carter for lost time, and himself lost time directly owing to defendant's action, lie may have £2, so that judgment will be for £5 us, to be reduced to £2—if the bag of gum be within seven days put on board the Auckland steamer, freight paid, consigned to the plaintiff at the Kaipara Steam Company's office, Auckland wharf; execution not to issue until store account be paid, or arranged for. Costs, £11.

Undefended Cases (Judgment for plaintiffs).—C. G-. Tennent v. William Hawk, £7 os6d ; Isaac Phillip v. Thos. Hillman De Thierry, £4 10s; Sash and Door Company v. Dowland, £6 Is 6d ; J. and D. Oxley v. Henry Haase, £S 14s; Bright Smile Goldmining Company v. Robt. Mackay, £10 ; Reid and Co.* v. T. H. Rowen, £10"l7s 6d ; Oliver Sydney Ellis v. Thomas Hewlett, £1 12s lid; W. Flood v. P. Mahoney, £1 10s; K. M. Hallett v. C. A. Robertson, £5 11s4d; Andrew Joughlin v. W. T. Cannel, £1 14s 3d; Clias. Sutton v. H. Wilson, £25 12s.

Judgment Summonses.—Ryan, Bell, and Co. v. John Puroell ; claim, £12 14s. Mr. Browning for the creditors, Ordered to pay within 14 days, or two months' imprisonment. Kate Moses v. G. Adolphus Davis; claim, £7 13s. Mr. Theo. Cooper for plaintiff. An order was made for the payment of 30s per month ; in default, 14 days' imprisonment. Buckley v. M. D. Youug, £4 10s. Misservice of summons. Case struck out.

Bbiuht Smile Goldmixinu Company v. William James Hansen. —Calls, £21 1556t1. Mr. Tyler for the plaintiffs. The judgment debtor was examined by Mr. Tyler as to his means of paying. He said it was an unjust debt and he declined to pay it. In reply to the Court he said " decline" meant that he could not pay. He had property within the last two years, but he got rid of it. He said it was, and afterwards that it was not his. He farmed a piece of land belonging to Mr. Lally, but afterwards he said that it was " grazing" for which lie used the land. He had money given him by his sister. He bought his own clothes. Lived at his sister's house. He had a sixpence, a shilling, even a pound; but in answer to the question why he did not pay the pound off his debt, he said he was agent for his sister, and he had no money but what he got from her. He knew there was such a vehicle as " Hanson's Express," but it did not belong to him. Mr. Tyler said it was evident that the witness was evading the questions—he was shuffling from first to last, indeed the whole thing was little more or less than a swindle. Witness : Nothing of the kiud. Mr. Tyler : When the action was brought, if it was an unjust debt, why did you not defend it ? Witness: 1 could not. His Worship :In fact, the injustice had not come off. The defendant should consider that he undertook serious responsibilities along with other persons. Those persons had been held to their responsibilities; actions had been taken against them, and various sums of money recovered. The defendant must consider that other persons, his fellow shareholders, his co-partners, his a right to keep him to his engagements. He would adjourn the case for a fortnight, in the hope that the defendant would see matters in a different light.

Mullally v. Paul.—Claim, £25. Mr. Theophilus Cooper for the plaintiff; Mr. Tyler for the defendant. This was an action for the non-delivery of a horse, and for loss of profits. The plaintiff said that there was a bargain made between himself and defendant to the following purport: The witness said that defendant had a colt, whicli he (plaintiff) was to have upon paying £10 and giving a colt of his own as part payment. There was an old account between the parties. The plaintiff said lie gave the defendant £S, and went for the eolt to Mangere. But the defendant said there was not money enough paid, and that the £S already given was appropriated to the liquidation of the old account. The plaintiff said his own colt was valued at £15, and the defendant said his colt was worth £25. According to the defendant lie refused to take the plaintiffs colt as an equivalent for £15, but offered to sell Mullally the eolt for £22 cash. The plaintiff said that he had paid the defendant another £5. But the defendant denied this, and said that a good deal of what the plaintiff said was "untrue." Mr. Cooper said there was perjury somewhere, he did not know on which side. There was a direct conflict of testimony, without corroboration. The plaintiffs counsel agreed to take a nonsuit.

Jackson v. Rowks.—This was a claim for rent in lieu of notice. The plaintiff owned certain premises in Lome-street. The tenancy was from Saturday to Saturday, and the rent was paid np to the last completed term. But on the Monday in the currency of the next, term the defendant said she nmsrfc leive the house, and offered to pay a week's rent in lieu of notice. This was the ground of the claim. But it appeared that on the Monday the plaintiff let the house to another person, and the new tenant entered on the Tuesday. The plaintiff and his wife admitted that they obtained rent from the new tenant for tho part of the week comprised within the notice. His Worship said that, having accepted the offer of payment in lieu of notice, there was a continuation of the tenancy, .one: putting in the new tenant operated as an "ouster" of the previous tenant. Judgment for defendant.

POLICE CO UKT. —Th c ksl-av [Hefore K. C. Kintow, Esq., E.M.]

Obskexe Lani:i?ai:e.—Rose Boyd was charged with having made use of obscene Uuiguagc in a public place, to wit, Qucenstrcet. She pleaileil not guilty. Constable Kenneily deposed to sec-ing the accused at half-past 12 o'clock, near the Theatre, shouting at the top of her voice, that she would not go home, and that she wanted to bo locked up. Witness advised her to go home, so also did the man who lived with her. and she then used the language complained of. She had nothing to say in her defence, except to deny having used the language. The case, however, was found proved, and she was fined 20s and costs, or in default, suffer seven days' imprisonment, with hard labour. Threatexixc Laxgdaoe.—Francis Patterson, on warrant, was charged with having used threatening language toward i William Stanford at Ponsonby. Mr. Partly paid -Mr. Stanford refused to supply the accused with liquor, and that was what gave ::ise to the altercation. William Stanford deposed that prisoner came to the Ponsonby Club Hotel. He was the worse for liquor, and vritaesa refused to serve him. He then trreoteaed to

punch his head. He forced his way behind the counter, demanding beer or ™ Witness had been subjecf to annoyanceS this man during the last two month, 7 Graham ami A. Pollard gave evince' They were present when thetltercation place The accused said his beer lad W paid for, niul he would have the bceror the money. The landlord had taken either ft! beer or a pot from before the prisoner The accused sa,dthat this was correct, the belthad been paid for, and the landlord tooki away from him, and refused to let him have the beer or tue money. He wa 3 ordered •„ be bound over in his own recognisances of 420, and a surety ,„ a like amount, to tl the peace for six months, and to mv costs, 15s. L ' ■> - Assaults.—Thomas Short was chi r .,, i with assaulting Isabella Donald by st-P-tn heron the face with his clenched frt,,, threatening to take her life. He idn'i't i having some words with the woman' H had been living with her for ei"!it w-i aud wanted to separate from her. °H e .j.'niM having struck her. The prosecutrix <W«» that on the 10th, the defendant was iE the influence of drink. She went out fo' an hour, and on her return, he Ktnick ht-l on the head, and said he would knock hf. ■ down aud stamp on her. She ran awav and returned next day. When she wont for her sewing machine, he struck he anit, and threatened to do for her. iVi-imV-pleaded hard with the witness to withdraw the charge, but she declined. He w.-is ordered to enter into his own of £10, and a surety in a like amount" tn keep the peace for three months, aud to m>. the costs 9s. J

Prisons Act. — Edward Lysaalit vis charged with ;i breach of the Prisons IS" 3, by attempting to cause to b<> intro duced into the Mount Edeu public prison tobacco on the 4th instant. He plendiO guilty. It appears that on his diso'n.ii-e from prison a number of notes were fo-.iud sewn in his flannel. They were adilressci] by prisoners to people outside, rcquestiim them to send them tobacco and matches by the prisoner. He wis sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard labour.

Stealiau a FrsHixo Net.—Dominic alia* Domingo, was charged with stealing a nsiiiac net worth £10, the property of Frank Fort ance, on the 27th October hist. The prisoner, Mr. Pardy said, had only been arrested yes'terday at Waiheke. There were two other charges against him, and he asked for a remand. Remanded till Saturday. Stealixc Money.—Albert Slattery was charged with stealing £20, the property of Oliver Mays, at Devonport, on the 2Sth October. Mr. Hesketh said he had been instructed to appear to watch some charge, but as yet he had been unable to see any charge. His Worship : There is the charge on the police sheet upon which the accused was remanded and admitted to bail. Mr. ,1. B. Russell said suspicions having been aroused in Mr. Mays' mind, he called in the aid of the police, and this led to the arrest of Mr. Slattery, but explanations which h.id since taken place led him to think that the interests of justice would be fully served by not proceeding further, his main object being to clear up suspicion regarding members of his own household. Mr. Pardy: An information had been prepared, but Mr. Mays now declined to swear to it. Of course, the police, could take up the ease themselves, but the main and sole evidence against the accused rests on a confession made by the accused to Detective Jeffrey. Mr. Thompson and himself did not see their way clear to force on the prosecution, thinking that for a police prosecution some further evidence would be required. At the same time he was surprised at Mr. Mays backing out, as at first he was very eager to prosecute. Mr. Russell : No promise or inducement has been held out to Mr. Mays to induce him to withdraw from the prosecution, but he thought the interests of justice were fully served by not proceeding further. Mr. Pardy : I may say that if any further evidence is obtained the police will again bring on the charge. His Worship : 1 have nothing before me. There is no evidence offered, and I must order the prisoner to be discharged. The accused then left the dock. This was all the business. GISBORNE R.M. COURT.—Tcesimv, November 2. [Before Matthew Price, Esq., R.M.] An U.vf.ur Rating: Case. — William Franklin Browne, native school teacher, at Akuaku, Open Bay, appeared, in answer to a summons, for county rates and arrears (IS7S, ss; 1579, Ss ; and ISSO, 10s) on the school-house occupied by him. The summons was issued by the Cook County Council. Mr. W. L. Rees appeared for defendant, the Council being represented by Mr. John. Warren, county clerk and collector. John Warren, for the Council, deposed : i here produce the rate-book, in which the defendant is assessed for rates amounting to 235, which have not been paid. I also produce my own authority to sue for the Cook County Council. AV. F. Browne deposed that the buildings were erected by the General Government on native land. Mr. Rees, solicitor, addressed the Court for the defence. He claimed a dismissal of the case on the following grounds : 1. Defendant was a Government officer, occupying premises which were the property of Her Majesty, and, as such, exempted by tinRating Act, 1576, from rating. 2. The land on which the buildings were erected was native land, over which the aboriginal title had never been extinguished, and, as such, exempt by the same Act. 3. The buildings were for educational purposes, r.ud as such exempt under the Education Act of 1877. 4. No notice had been served on defendant of his liability in time to enable him to appeal at the Assessment Court. Mr. Rees understood tliiit there were half-a-dozen or more native schools in the county, but none of the teachers occupying them had been put on the rate-book. Why his client had been selected and rated for tliren years lie thought ought to have been explained by the prosecutor; but this had not been done. The Court announced that it would take time to consider the points raised by the defence in this ease, and would therefore reserve its decision till Friday next, Ou November f> the Court dismissed the summons, on the ground that under the Education Act the premises rated were exempt. Mr. Huts applied for costs. The defendant had l)eeii brought eighty miles and been put to great expense. The Court declined to award any costs to the defendant.—FOwn Coni-iwn-dent]