LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 6146, 29 July 1881, Page 6

LAW AND POLICE.

DISTRICT COURT.—Thursday. [Before J. E. Macdonald, Esq., Judge.] His Honor sat tills morning, and disposed ol the following cases :—

Beloev. MoitAX.-This was an application for a re-hearing. The claim was brought for damago done by a flre lighted by defendant on his land, which entered the plaintiffs bush. (The facts were part of the " Pukekohobush-burning") The ground of application was that of excessive damages given to plaintiff, £100. His Honor in giving judgment, said : To entitlo defendant to the relief asked, he most show not only that the damages are in excess, but that they will be so found on a consideration of the matter in evidence at the trial, and of that matter alone. Now I have anxiously considered the evidence, and considering that, and that alono (as I am bound to do) the only conclusion is that the damages are too small, because cramped to keep the case within tho jurisdiction of this Court. I must, therefore, dismhra the application, but in doing so I confess that now, as on giving judgment, I entertain a suspicion that the .damages are, as the defendant insists, in excess of tho plaintiff's injury, but for me to allow my suspicions certainly not tangibly, and perhaps altogether unfounded, and certainly rather refuted than eupported by the evidence, to outweigh that evidence would be impropor in the extreme. The truth in, that defendants case was not brought into Court then as it would be on a rehearing ; but to grant a new trial on that ground would litigation endless, unless it : did away with it altogether by rendering the case of tho would-be plaintiff altogether hopeless. Mears v. Mackin.non.-Claim. £31 I4s. Mr Tyler for the plaintiff, Mr. S. Hesketh for the defendant. This was an action to recover for ploughing done by the plaintiff under agreement with tho defendant. The land to be ploughed was the area of an island of the Walkato River, estimated to contain 197 acres. The Pontiff was to plough the land at acre, and defendant was to supply horse feed and other ttnjigs necessary. The defendant put in a set-off for £130, but he agreed to abandon th% excess of, set-off over the jurisdiction of tho Court. The counsel for the plaintiff objected to this mode of dealing with the set-off. Ho contended that the defendant in a caso in the District Court could not abandon an excess of set-off over jurisdiction. Hie Honor sustained the objection, and suggested that, as the matters in • difference between the parties could not be determined by the present action, there must be another rait M bring about a settlement by mums of law. It was ;h«refore a case In which both sides might »ee their interest In submitting to arbitration. The Court ad- ] oarned to enable parties to consult with their counsel. After a quarter of an hoar it was anneunced that the parties could not agree to the bads of a settlement by arbitration. The plaintiff proceeded with hia evidence which was in effect that the work was done according to agresment, that subsequently ho found that more land was ploughed thin was

charged for.- ''Jho defendant 'denied that therewas ever auclli an agreement made as that set _np by .t|io plaintiff. .Th e other matters in difference Were, wholly matten of acooont There were thrc«l separate agrcomenU set m> • -m In relation to three Jobs of work to be dono ; (2) a con tract for the purchaw and sale of hones; (3) ind the goods to be supjilied to the plaintiff duriW the nrogress of tho woric. In addition to these it was stated that each job of 'work was agreed to specifically. The plaintiff was examined at great length as to the main facts in support; of his caro, and cross-examined at ereat length V Mr. S. Hesksth. The hearing had not - concluded whea the Court rose. β^njt

RESIDENT: MAGISTRATE'S COUKr. Thursday. [Before .J. E. Jlacdonald, E*]., K.M.] The ordtoary weekly sitting to hear and dcUrmlne Bennett v. T. li-opiha, £10 i2s Od • J Kin/v T Hyland, £10 ; H. Webster v. S3. T Brar £0 3. M • Partridge and Woollams v. Holme. eSsCd-T , Shlskav. B. O'Hara, 31s 9d; CLta&te S°S y £s • C "° k ' ° 030ll: Sl <» VVniu vJ.

ADJOOn.vED.—Dalton v. Hamon, £517 aod • Warren T. Hunter, £5 lilsGd ; Fenton v. WiUon £126 S JirDcmiKT Summonses.—Tomllnson v n W Brewer. £10 0s BiL The defendant was ordered to nav 103I 03 i?, m A^^" r J 1 8 ' lm l"-isonment In default. Auckland Timbw Company v. Woods, £8 4s (id. The defendant agreod to pay 10s a month. Somerfleld *"«, r ' re, ** 2s ld, Ori "c<l to pay forth-

Defended Casks. Joxei v. Pavke.—Claim £5 19s. Mr. Mackectaio for the plaintiff. Jlr. Thome for the defendant This was a claim for work and labour, material supplied, ii <£? i P rtlc " wcrefor a tl,no •<• Partnership, The plaintiff U a caitpenter. The work w»s done in over- ,"* 1° t , he pU '?" ff ' " U 5 " lrt °' " accord, ing to the defendant, was done under the Darlnuraliin azreement. Th* defendant objected to anumteTl incidental changes made by tho plaintiff His Worship gave Judgment for 20s for the plaintiff, and

Bhop at 5s i»«t The defendant said the as ß the shop was offered to him by the plaintiff without any agreement for runt, and as a kiadnojs for tbo ciccn. tion of a tempurary order. The plaintiff went in and out whenererlie liked. The defendant sa°d he never fiad exclusive possession of the shed The defendant iiwore positively that the plaintiff said he (plaintiff) would not charge rent for thcThcd S no account for rent was delivered to tho defendant until after defendant's account was sent to plaintiff His Worship saEd no rent was contemplated at first and ho could not see how a claim for rent would accrue afterwanU without» contract or stipulition o£ some kind. Judgment fornho defendant jAFFRArv. Fiske.—This was. a proeo'edln;; to recover possession, of a tenoment. The rent was paid up to date. His \V orship made an order to eive vn nniT session on the Bth of August. ' '

POLICE COURT.—Tnr/BSDVY [Btfore ,R. C. Ban tow, Esq., R.ir,]

DnuNKKSNEs.?.—Two persona were punished for drunkenness, and James Watson, for a third offence was sentenced U> 7 dsys' imprisonment. ' Illeciallv on Prkmisxs.—Allan Pye Kinshorna pleaded guilty to being found by nightSriSt law" ful excuse in Mr. Oralis yard. It appeared the yard, though enclosed, had been left open, and defendant s&id he thought It no harm to go n> thore and havo a rest. Mr. Pardj said it was more out of charity than anything elso he was brought boforo tho Court. For several nights pa.st ho had been jlceplng out, and Uie police feared he would bo found dead seme morning He was addicted, to drink. Tho defendant Sialic was in expectation of a remittance from HonK Hew«l discharged oa condition that he cleared out o£ town.

Axotiier Cask.—William EoiUy and John Hamilton were charged with being found by night without lawful excuse iu an outhouse, tie property of J«m*« Phillips. Both pleaded guilty. with grog, and were shown into this place Their were discharged on condition that they cleared out of town.

In-deckxt AssAULT.-James Oulbert was charged with indecently assulting ono Laura Kobertsoi , child 10 years old, on April 20th. Mr. Laishlcv ant peared for the ancuaed. He said that Air. Pardv was willing to reduco tho charge to one of common assault, so that the Bench might deal with it sum T arf i y - S*' ¥"?& aUo , a3ked h ha *e the duccd. Mr. Lalslilcy then on behalf of the prisoner pleaded guilty. Tho assault was not an aggravated one and he the Bench to deal wilhthlcafcunder the 9th sectioa of the Act. Mr. Pardv starni the facts of the case. The little girl with three other? who attended Mr. Harrison's school, went into tR Western Park to play. Prisoner was there under the influence of drink, and committed tho assault bv by placing his hand on tho girl's knee, sho cried out and Mr. Harrison gave chase, but accused ran away, and cleared on'! into the bush. He was iutoeim \hi Constable Kelly at Mercury Bay. Hi, WoShipiaid had i'!?« prison ' 3r uaed , violen,:e h » would have awarded the extreme penalty, but as he had not done so, ho would sentence him to throe months' Imprisonwlth h»rd labour. A second chnige arainst the nri soner of assaulting another child was withdrawn Valueless Cheques.—Harry W. Duval better known as Dr. Duval, was charged under the Vamint ThL« O fi-n' mp<,S l nff ° n * pr } Vate , porßon ' to wit, Thomas JLUison, by means of a valueless chmnom! tho Bank of Nevr South Wales for the sum of £3 tip accused pleadod not guilty, and asked that the rlan«> of the Act might be read & him. This w" s Mr. Pardy stated the facts of the case. It waß one of a series of coses. Alexander Ellison, shopman *toi iSi brother, Thomaj; Ellison, deposed that tfic"defendant bought a pair of boots, and paid for them lf£ Witness gavo him the boots and £1 lej chanire Wit ness next day presented the cheque at the bank Ira* the answer he received was that there were not Eufflcient funds. Ho received the cheque on Saturday night, and presented it on Monday moraine Pri soner previously bought a pair of shoes. Patrick Lundon, clerk of tho Bank of Now South Wulcf deposed that pruioner opened an account at the bant early in June, and paid in £45. Uo had subsequontly paid in two sums of £3 and £b On the 20th cJ June the amount ho bad at toe bank was 10s lid, and it stood at that now The cheque produced was tho a0.40.nd which had bwn refused payment. Annie Duval, a married womae residing in Holison-streot, deposed to askine the prisoner, who wan no relativo of hers, to bank some £40 or £50 for her, which she had received from home Sho mentioned tlio Bank of New Zealand, returned and sai.l lie had banked it to t ,e BaSv S Now South Walos in his own name, bit did nutate why. Sho know of his once drawing £9 or £10 to nav some accounts. Tho day beforo prisoner left f>,r Riycrhcad sho asikcd him about her account, and ho said he would ao»uut to her when he camo back hit? he did not return. He told her hi! had £60 ofhisom, in tho bank Sho then understood therowas £30™ her credit whon ho went to Rivcrhead. 31? Major brought her a cheque for £10. Prisoner iiad no authoritytod ? ,rthe£3o. Cross-examined: YouhSS nolanthority during the last foitnight to settle my accounts. Yougare me £4 beforo you left. William Rcat, assistant to Mr. Major, grocer dcixKpiimß prisoner asked Urn to cash a cheque for £10 He S* 1 " 6 . a ? account out of it. Witness consulted Sir. JLijor, who authorised him to receive it. He did so, nr,d gave Duval £8 and some odd Sh m'h Ho , had PM W S^LJfS?. them by cheqne, which was honoured. A\Ci he gave the second cheque it was Saturday aftiraoon after hank hours. Tho goods he reserved oa heard of him in Wellington, where ho had saUed in opened it in hi. own name. Prisoner said it was' thl teller of the Bank of New Zealand who allow liim to epen tho account in the name of AnnTi Duval. He recaUod Mr. Lundoc, whoTtatcd Sat other money to lus account in ihe bank. Accused said ho had no Intention to defraud. His Worship Simh 0, -' IUS ( t i' i M 1 "J n /S ilty - Ho mcmberuig that lie had been in the dock before troon charges of a si.nilar nature. Hi was sentaS?.Tto twolve months' imprisonment with hard labour Two other charges ol' a similar uatur.) in re»poct of the wHhdoawrf™ '° lUiOt mi Fcnton werj

a I^? U S Lv f p K°:''EKTV,—Thero was a charge acainst pcared, and the cuso was struck out. P J

OTAHUHU K.JI. COURT.—Tcjesday. [Before Messrs. U. C. Barstow, R.M., and John Gordon, J.P.] Maliciovs Isjirar to Pkopbetv.— Elizabeth Clarkson was charged with the poisoning ofTpoodi" dog the property of Charlotte Boot, oa Sunday, the Bth day of May lait. The police conduced tho proseration, and Mr E. Cooper, solicitor, appeared foTthe defendant. The hearing of the case occupied some SSfc.^fn* 11 !? , J Ue A foUowln ß witnesses wfre examined:—Miss Boot, Amy Thompson Mildred Thompson, Fred. Thompson, Ann McCrory,' and Constable Graham for the prosecution; James Clarkson E. Clarkson, and Oslew for the defence The evidence was. of a very contradictory nature Mrs. Thompson swearins t&at she did not give any poison to the defendant, while the defendant freely admitted ttat she did got poison from witness, but that it was used in killing mEco. After some deliberation, the Bench dismissed the case, and, in doing no, thS Resident llajrfatra'ie commonted strongly on the unreliable naturj of i;h« evidence given by the witness Amy Thompson., ' Crm Cases.—'Fliomas ITcGahan v. A. Hooper: 6d . fou rent and goods. Judgment foe plaintiff, 7a cost» ; ordered to pay 12« every four weeks. A. Sturgen v. L. Moshiom : Claim, 30s od, for goods. Judgment for plaintiff; costs 10s. John Hall v Joseph jYcmng. Judgracnt rammons of old standing. Further proceedings deferred till the 23rd October next. - [Oiro Correspondent, July 27.)