LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIX, Issue 6572, 9 December 1882, Page 6

LAW AND POLICE.

• RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Friday. [Before J. E. Macdonald. Esq., R.M.I An adjourned sitting of the Court -"as held this morning and the following business disposed of :—

Gallagher v. Armstrong.—Claim, £15. Mr. C. Buddie for plaintiff; Mr. Alexander for defendant. The question raised in this action waa as to whether the defendant, who is a land, house, and commission agent, had a right to detain money paid as a deposit upon a sale of property as security for his commission. The following were the facts deposed to in evidence: Andrew Heavey was the owner of certain allotments at Northcote and property in Wyndham-street, which, according to the defence, he instructed the defendant to sell. The plaintiff purchased, and paid £15 into the hand of the defendant, Heavey's agent. Heavy now denied that he gave instructions to sell the Wyndham-street property, repudiated the sale by Armstrong, and Gallagher therefore sued to have the deposit returned. The chief questions of fact in the case were—l. Whether the defendant was duly authorised by Heavey to sell. 2. Whether the sale was a complete and valid sale. Mr. Leys, a Government Insurance agent, deposed to bringing the property under the notice of Armstrong, and to several interviews, at which he was present, between Armstrong and Heavey, from which it was inferred that the instructions to sell were full and definite. But Heavey swore that he did not wish to sell the Wyndham-street property, that the defendant " sold too soon." But it was ascertained by the inquiries incident to this contract that Heavey's title was defective. It was also sworn that Heavey had contracted to cenvey to the purchaser (Gallaghsr) by the 7th of November. The plaintiff was nonsuited.

Armstroxo v. Lewis.—Mr. Alexander for the plaintiff announced that this case had been settled. O/WCEs v. M^cCormick.—Mr. Williamson for the plaintiff, with consent of Mr. Cooper acting for the defendant, applied that this case be struck off the list.

Thk Mayor and Corporation of Auckland v. Ruth erkoiu). — Claim, £12 16s. Mr. Cotter for plaintiffs ; Mr. Theo. Cooper for the defendant. The action was brought under clause 221 of the Municipal Corporation Act, "If any land or building within the borough lying within 100 feet from the sea or from a public drain can bo and is not drained by some pipe or drain to the satisfaction of the Council, the Council may make such drain as it thinks necessary to carry the drainage of such building to the sea. &c, and may recover the coat of such work not exceeding one year's rack rent of such land or building from the owners or occupiers thereof." By the interpretation clause the owner of property was deemed to mean "the person for the time being entitled to the rack rent thereof." The delendant in the actiou is Mrs. Sarah Rutherford, executrix and administratrix of the late James Rutherford, of Remuera, lessor of the property. The property is in Hobsonstrcet, held upon a seven years' lease by Messrs. Reid, cabinetmakers. In consequence of tho or refusal of the owner to connect with the main sewer, the Surveyor, under the instructions of the City Council, did the work requisite, and the present actiou was brought to recover the cost thereof. When tho. defendant (Mrs. Rutherford) was examined, she swore that the late Mr. Rutherford nave the property by deed to his daughter (Mrs. Weston), and tho property w.is not in the will, nor in possession of the legal representative. Ja-nes Rutherford (son of deceased) produced a conveyance from the late Mr. Rutherford to the witness aud Mr. W. Thome. Mr. Cooper said the lessee of the property covenanted to pay all rates, taxes, charges, Sec. Judgment for defendant, with costs, £2 15?.

POLICE COURT.—Friday. [Before Messrs. Boardman and Martelli, Drusken.vkss.—Five men were punished for this olFence. One man, fwho was iti a state of remanded for eight days. Assault.—Edward Williams was charged with assaulting David Melndoe, by striking him on the face with his clenched fist and pulling his beard, at Epsom. Mr. Tyler appeared for defendant, and Mr. S. Hcsketh for complainant. Mr. S. Hcsketh stated the case, and called James Melndoe, who deposed that while driving a horse towards the pound, at Epsom, defendant rode up, headed the horse, and turned it back. The witness remonstrated with defendant, whereupon defendant rode at witness, and said "I'll trample your brains out." Witness seized the horse by the bridle to prevent the animal being ridden over him. Defendant then caucht witness by the beard, and struck him on the face. Subsequently he seized witness with his two hands by the beard, and tried to pull him to the ground. O'Meara Hart, Win. May, and Win. Cook gave evidence for the informant. Mr.Tyler then stated the case for the defence, and, in the course of his remarks, sau , . that Melndoe and O'Meara Hart had committed a most murderous assault on Williams. Edward Williams deposed thaS Melndoe threw stones at witness, seized the bridle of the horse witness was riding, anil tried to drag him off the iior.se. O'Meara Hartstruck him (witness) on the back of the head with a hoe. Melndoe and O'Meara Hart subsequently attempted to drag witness along the road, and nearly choked him in the act. Hβ did not strike Melndoe. He kicked at O'Meara Hart, but did not kick him. James Mclntosh, joiner, deposed to seeing O'Meara Hart strike at Williams with the hoe, and poke him in the ribs with the handle of the hoe. Melndoe held Williams while O'Meara Hart struck him. William Dean, carpenter, also gave evidence. Melndoe and O'Meara Hart were re-called, and both denied that stones were thrown. This closed the case. | David Mclndo* and Charles O'Meara Hart were charged with assaulting Edward Williams by pulling him off a horse, striking him on the head with a hoc, and dragging him along the road at Epsom. The Bench, after hearing the evidence, dismissed both cases. . • Breach of Impounding Act. —Edward Williams was charged with a breach of the Impounding Act, by rescuing a horse which had been lawfully seized for the purpose of being impounded. Fined 40s and costs.

In3ULTI>:o Language.—Alexander Watson was charged with using insulting language towards Bridget Mooney, and complainant feared that the conduct was likely to be repeated, and thus tend to provoke a breach of the peace. There was no appearance of defendant, and a warrant was issued for his apprehension. Mary Breen waa also charged with using insulting language towards Agnes Lambert. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Agues Lambert and Klizabcth lkeeu gave evidence Defendant was bound over in two sureties of £10 each to keep the peace for one mouth.

Larceny.—Timotliy Golbridge, alias Tom Jones, pleaded guilty to stealing a hat worth 10a 6d, the property of Gabriel Lewis, on the Oth instant. There being no previous conviction against defendant, he was discharged with a caution.

Obscene Lanouaoe.—Peter Quinlan was charged with a breach of the Vagrant Act, 1860, Amendment Act, 1809, by making use of obscene language in a public street (Queen-street), on the 7th instant. Defendant pleaded guilty. Serjeant White said the language used was very offensive, and was used within the hearing of persons passing in the street at the tinie. He asked for a severe sentence in order to put down such conduct. Defendant was lined 40s and costs, or, in default, 14 days' imprisonment with hard labour.