LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 6062, 22 April 1881, Page 6

LAW AND POLICE.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. THURSDAY. [Before B. C. Barstow, Esq., R.M.] Tiie regular sitting of this Court was held yesterday, for the purpose of hearing and determining small debt cases. Judgment for Plain-tiffs. — S. E. Hughes v. Joseph Merritt, £24 6s, balance of a promissory note, costs £4 10s; E. Lewis v. Maurice Kelly, jun., £6 13s sd, goods,costs £2 14s ; John Carey v. George Lowell, £3 9s 6d, amount of an 1.0. U., costs £1 9s 6d; John Carey v. George Lewell, £2, board and residence, costs 19s ; Branston aud Foster v. Purcell, £16 10s 6d, costs £3 8s; John Lavery v. John Mclnany, £6 ss, costs £1 12s; M. Murchie v. E. F. Buckworth, claim £12, balance of an account, costs £2 Is ; Paul and Schenck v. Andrew Stephens, claim £1 Is 6d, goods, costs £1 2s 6d ; F. H. Lewisson v. ■ E. F. Buckworth, £48 12s, amount of a dishonoured promissory note, £4 14s; Sarah Phillip v. William Seagar, claim 6s sd, costs £1 2s 6d. Judgment Summons.—Richard Laishley v. Elias Jaekman. The judgment was for £15 6s 10d. The defendant was in Christchurch. Mr. Laishley put in a letter from a private detective to the effect that defendant had means to pay at least £1 a week, and he asked the Bench to make an order. An order was made for the payment of the whole amount, and costs 20s, to the clerk of the court, Auckland, in weekly payments of 20s, and in the default of payment, to undergo two months' imprisonment at Lyttelton. O'Brien a_nd Glenn v. Arthur Wilson. —Mr. Burton appeared for the judgment creditors. The debtor did not appear. He had himself made an offer to pay 30s amonth and had paid one instalment. Mr. O'Brien proved that the defendant was a carpenter and builder. He was working for himself. His Worship said he only the othrr day heard that the defendant had taken a contract and lost money by it, but as he himself made the offer, he would make the order to pay £6 2s lid, and costs 10s to the Clerk of. the Court, in four-weekly payments of 30s each, or, in default, to undergo four weeks' imprisonment. William Suiter v. Charles Robinson. —Mr. Thome appeared for the judgment creditor. The plaintiff deposed that fifteen months ago the defendant went to Gisborne and was ever since employed as engineer of a steamer at wages of £17 or £18 per mouth, and an order was made for payment of £4 6s od, in monthly instalments of £2, and, in default, to undergo three weeks' imprisonment. Holland and Butler v. F. Dyer.—Mr. Cooper for the judgment creditor. Defendant offered to pay half the debt in a fortnight, and the balance in a month. An order was made to that effect. The debt was £5 16s 7d. The penalty of default was three weeks' imprisonment. Daniel Murray v. John Mullally.— Mr. S. He3keth for the judgment creditor. The debt was only 265. An order was made for payment of the debt, and costs ss, in a fortnight, or, in default, a week's imprisonment. Gregory S. Norris v. James Bruce.— Mr. Theophilus Cooper appeared for the plaintiff. The application was to take the: evidence of the plaintiff for transmission to the Court at Timaru. The amount sued for was £23 9s, the amount being an average bond. The defendant was a timber merchant at Timaru. In January, 1880, plaintiff was master and owner of the barque Glimpse, then lying in Timaru roadstead, where she suffered damage by stress of weather. Defendant was consignee of the caiyo, and witness had the average bond produced prepared and signed by the defendant. John Waymouth, accountant and average adjuster, was also examined. He had prepared the average statement in connection with the barque Glimpae. W. J. Napier v. Calliau, Peltzer, and Villeval.—Mr. S. Hesketh for the defendants, and Mr. Tole for the plaintiff. The case had been partly heard on the last Court day. The defendants had been proprietors of the Muse newspaper, and the plaintiff sued for the balance due on a P.N. and bill of sale over the plant. Mr. Hesketh said the defence was thattherehad been no demand for payment, thus breaking the covenant, and secondly that there was damage and loss to the plant owing to the manner of the sale, and that the property had deteriorated in value.' Ernest William Burton,- solicitor, identified the bills of sale as having been prepared by hi in, and he was the attesting witness. Under Mr. Peltzer's instructions lie wrote to Mr. Napier on the sth of October, informing him that the Muse had stopped, and requesting him to call to try and make arrangements. He understood that it was in consequeuce of a disagreement between the parties and what was wanted was to make arrangements for Mr. Peltzer and Mr. Villeval to carry on the paper. Mr. Napier called in the afternoon of the same day, but they did not make any arrangements. The proposal was declined altogether, aud witness wrote out the formal demand now in Court for Mr. Napier. He intimated his intention of seizing. Mr. Peltzer told witness to call a meeting of his creditors at some convenient time, so that Mr. Napier might attend. This closed the plaintiff's case. Mr. Hesketh applied either for a nonsuit or judgment for the defendant, on the ground that no demand had been made as required by the bill of sale. Mr. S. Hesketh's applied that a nonsuit be recorded, on the ground that a reasonable time was not given to get the money when demand was made; that the property was deteriorated while in possession of the mortgagee. His Worship held that the terms of the bill were most stringent, and that the argument of deterioration could ouly benefit two of the defendants, inasmuch as the third j one took it over. Mr. Peltzer was examined, and said that the press and type after the first seizure were removed in a careless manner. Witness heard Mr. Villeval say that he had never seen such "wanton" destruction of property. Witness protested against the manner of its being removed. The press was injured, the type was scattered about, and injured. Napier said it was a formality; that lie would give time to pay the money. After Napier seized he said he was going to establish a newspaper, otherwise witness would have taken some moans. Just before the first seizure the plant was worth £65 after the removal. M. Villeval gave similar testimony. He considered the press in good working order at the time of tho seizure. The case had not concluded when the Court rose. The remainder of the business was adjourned to Monday morning next. POLICE COURT.—Thursday. [Before Messrs. J. Cosgraveand F. L. Prime, Justices.] Breach of the Peach.—Robert Leary and S. Sykes were charged with a breach of the Vagrant Act by behaving in a riotous manner in Queen-street. The charge having been proved, they were sentenced to pay a fine of £10, or three months' imprisonment. Larcenies.—Maria Grey, charged with tho larceny of 17 yards of calico, value £1 10a, the property of John Grace, ou tho 19th of April. Remanded till Monday, herself in

£10, and two sureties in £5 each.—John \f Angus, charged with the larceny ofapece of Sfi* P£P. ert y of JR. \Vhite, P on thi 20th April Prisoner was discharged ife being his first offence.—Mary Fathereol* charged with the larceny of a p\4 coTtafc ing Ids, and a pair of earrings, valued at*fk the property of Emily Aultin, on the 19th \s%r R * mande , d «»e 2Sth instant_ *» f 1 ? 11 ' c ™£°« with the lareSy o i a pool-basket and sixteen ivorv bills at £& the property of Wi&ftK or about the 18th of April. Remanded untt to-day (Iriday) on his own bail.-William lorner charged with the larceny o ™ blanket and axe, valued at 7s 6d, ihe pi-o-perty of some person unknown; also larceny of a pool-basket and sixteen ivorv balls valued at £S, the property of William Hamley, on or about the ISth of April Remanded on botli charces to the <>Sth in«*