LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XX, Issue 6636, 23 February 1883, Page 6

LAW AND POLICE.

R.M. COURT.—' Thursday. [Refora H. G. Seth Smith, Esq., U.M.] The regular weekly citting of the Resident Magistrate's Court was held yesterday, and the following cases were disposed of : — Judgments for Plaintiffs. — Hancock and Co. v. P. H. H. Lloyd, c'aim £2, costs 231 Gd ; Hancock and Co. v. J. P. Pie-cott,

claim £2, costs 23a Gd ; Cosgrave and Co, v. C. D. E. Moller, claim £17 los sd, costs £2 16s ; Lewis v. John Leydon, cLim £3 4s 2d, Co3ts 23s Gd ; Percy Vaughan v. D. Taylor, claim £1 17s GJ, costs not allowed ; J. Rae v. Daniel McDougall, claim £5, coats 12i; J. Hulme v. Edmund Davidson, claim £5 lis lid, cost 3 £1 17a; Mrs. Cameron v. Blagrove, claim £20 10s Gd, costs £4 13s ; W. Pobinson v. F. Winter, claim i 2 -Is Gd, costs 22a Gd; Moses v. G. J. Smith, claim £2 los, costs 22s Gd ; Moses v. Patrick Keetey, claim £5 ; Moses v. James Stmton, claim £4 ; Cartwright v. James Rhodes, claim £7 15s 9d ; Cartwright v. James Rhodes, claim £4 3s Sd; Cook v. Ralph, claim £3, costs 12s ; King v. Handley, claim £9 6s, coats £4 12s (ordered to pay 10s per week) ; Garrett Brothers v, Elizabeth Bray, cla'm £3 16s, costs £1 2s Gd ; Rathbone v. P. Gleeson, claim £4, costs £1 2s Gd. Judgment Summonses.—Leek v. C. W. S. Purdie. Mr. Tole appeared fur the judgment creditor. The debtor was examine,!. Judgment was obtained against him in October last for £10 Gs sd. He had only earned about £2 since, and had betn ill in bed for three months. He was a gardener by trade. His son had paid £2 on his account. He was willing to pay 5s a week, and an order was made accordingly, or seven days' imprisonment in default of payment. Co was - v. Patterson - .—Mr. Burton appeared for the judgment creditor. The debt was £7 13s 4d. The debtor was examined as to his means. He was a commission "gent, but had not beeu earning lately, at.'i was living with his wife in lodging?, and had no office. His wife contributed to his support by teaching music. Mr. Burtou asked for an adjournment for three mouths, which was granted.

'[\hvssiien i) asd Moore v. Patterson.— The judgment was for £2 lGs, which, with costs, made it £3 ISs. It was the price ot a case of whisky, Mr. Brassey append for the judgment creditor. He was willing t-> pay the debt, but had net the means lo do so. He admitted having offered to pay £1 a month as soon as he was in a position tj do

si), and he would consent to an order to tha effect being made, commencing on the Ist o April. He Wts questioned as to £14 10 which he had in December, since the ju.ig meat was obtained, but he said he had pan in sati-faction of other debts and in house lold expenses. An order was made for pay nent of £1 a month, the first payment to bi nade this day month. Mr. Burton thei isked to have his case reinstated, aud ai irder made for 10s a month iu each case lis Worship said the matter must stani iver now until they saw if the first payinen vas made. P. Mcrtaoii v. A. Buckland — Mr. S. Hes :eth for plaintiff and Mr. Browning for tin Lefence. The case had been previously be ore the Court and evidence taken iu Napier Jr. Browning now called D. T. Ac :ountant for the defendant. T«o horse :ame to defendant from plaintiff. They wen lamed Comet and Maid of Erin, and wer old ou the 31st March for £25 and £20 10 espectively. The charges were fair and r<-a onable, and the balance, £23 Is, was for varded to Mr. Lascelles. The charges in :1 tided, freight, &c. The claim was thattli nstructious were not tu sell the horses at les ,han £40 each, whereas they were sol< vithout reserve for £51 10s, aud the clain vas for the difference. Counsel addressei ,he Court. The facts of the case wer' jriefly these : Murtagh, a horse owner ii S'apier, was arrested and applied to twi lien, Robinson and Benjamin, to become jail for him. They declined to do so unles hey g it security, and they went together ti Ur. Lascelles, a solicitor, and Murtagh gavi ,hem security over these horse?, which wen ihipped by Mr. Lascelles to Mr. Buckland, fo ;ale. The contention for the difference wa: ihat Mr. Lascelles was acting as special agen ind he did not give any instructions as t( •eserve. In addressing the Court, Mr drowning said that there wa? no intention oi lie part of the plaintiff to impute an; notives to Mr. Buckland in selling horse: inder the reserve fixed. Mr. La'-celles' intructions were to sell without reserve, aue o hold the proceeds for him. It was con ended, however, by Mr. Hesketh that do endant knew of the reserve fixed on then >y Murtagh, and the question was how fa _,ascelles was authorised to go beyone urtagh's instructions, and even to contra lict them. He contended that there was n> luthority to Lascelles to instruct Mr. Luck and to sell without reserve. He was only ti •eceive the proceeds of the sale, and beyom ;ha! lie could not go. He quoted from Addi ion on Cjntracts on the subject of th( mthority of agents that it was the duty 0 persons dealing with agents to Hud the cxten )f the ageut's authority. His Worship re ;erved judgment till next Court day. J. C. Cairns v. I>. McKenzie.—Mr. E ZJoopcr fir the plaintiff, and Mr. Oeorse foi he defendant. This was a claim lor £;i 13s 3d for grazing, and a set-off of £10 10= ".va; aid against it —being a for agricultura products left in the land when it sur -endered by the defendant, also tu wort lone, and commission on sale of land ai promised, £5. The action was to reCO\e 'or the grazing of cattle and a horse oi plaintiff's land, at Mount Albert. For som< ;ime the defendant had a right to grazi ;attle, but no horses. The defendant deniei ;he wuole claim, and claimed to n cover the !xces j , but Mr. Cooper urged that it couli lot be' recovered in this Court. He objcctee :o the set-off in toto, as it had never beet ;erved on the plaintiff, but simply left at hii Mr. Cooper's) office, not on the plaiutiff, a: •equired by the Resident Magistrate's Act He asked for a ruling on this point. Mr 2-eorge replied that it had always bcei mstomary to serve the attorney instead o ■he person. The plaintiff was in Mangere md could not be served. Sir. Coop- r con ;ended that the proper remedy would be bj iross action. His Worship ruled that th< ;ervice on the solicitor was sufficient. Mr hooper then pleaded that the let-off was i 'ross fabrication. He proceeded to analyzi ,he items of the set-off. The plaintiff lobert Skeene, who has now possession o he property, and Joseph Cooimins, farmer vere examined for the plaintiff. For thi lefeuce Mr. George called the defendaut anc McKcnzie, who were examined. Couu ,el then addressed the Conrt. His \\orshij 'ave judgment for plaintiff b-ing eutitled t< U 4s, which with the set-off gave balanci if £1 15s, for which judgment was givei vith costs. Aiilgrkn y. C. Crouch.—This was a clam or £4. Mr. Jacksun appeared for the plain iff. The plaintiffs case was that the de endant borrowed the money from him jVm. Smith, a boarding-house keeper, whi lad the order on Croucti, said the latter ad nitted the liability, but he did not rtceivi he money. Henry Erickson, mate of thi Tleetwing, also gave evidence. Tiie defend int denied ever having received any irouej rom the plaintiff, and for the dates allege! le produced documents to show that he wa: ibsent from the province at the timi 3e never saw the order William .Smith had md Smith never spoke to him about it iVhen he asked him to pay witness merely ;aid, "I am sure to pay for what I neve lad." Plaintiff was non-suited. W. Mclnto.su v. J. Ckaio.—Mr. E Hooper for plaiutiff, and Mr. J. I>. Russel or the defence. The claim was £S 5s for 3i ;ons of firewood delivered to a boatman oi lebalf of the defendant. There was adis jute as to three tons of the firewood. "1 h ilaintiff deposed that there were 30 ton lelivered, and he got the receipt from th naster of the schooner. The defence wa ;hat the wood brought when measured b; i disiutereste l dealer only measured 27 tons iYilliam Smith, master of the schoonei •cferred to, said lie only measured one stack m the beach, but he took plaintiff':* word foi ;he rest. Every stick wa-* delivered on the -vharf, and he had it measure 1 by Craig's nan and Craig's son, but they only made 27 ■,ons. Mr. Th.vaites was_ tlien called to neasure it, but only ixade it the same. Mi. los. J. Craig, junr., gavn evidence, as did tlso Mr. T. Thwaites. His Worship said ;heir was clearly a mistake. The evidence howed that only 27 tons was delivered, i udgment was given for the amount paid into 3jurt, with costs for the defendant, £2 4-;.

POLICE COURT.— Thursday. .[Before Mr. 11. F. Way, J.V.] DrcskeXNESS.—Three men were punished for this offence. Disorderly Behaviour.—Malcolm McLeod and George Riley were lined 10s and costs each, or in default 4S hours imprisonment, for a breach of the Vagrant Act, by behaving in Queen-street whereby a breach

of the peace was occasioned. A ferrcd against Percy Freer r,f wT lr ? e Frc-Queen-street Wharf'%rit"T^ n fr ,a 8 <* a breach of the peace, next day. tin