LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XX, Issue 6819, 25 September 1883, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

DISTRICT COURT.—Monday. [Before H. G. Scth Smith, Esq., Jndga.J

r The bi-monthly sitting of the Court was held this morning, and the following business disposed of: — CONNELL V. TE HBIiABA (JUDGMENT). Mr. B. Cooper for plaintiff. Mr. Dufaur for - defendaut. Claim, £29 on a promissory note made by defendant. His Honor said he had reserved judgment in this case on one point. The evidence was decidedly in favour of the i plaintiff. There was no reasonable doubt that the note produced was signed by the defendant. Although thedefendantalleged thatone, Oliver, might have obtained the signature through fraud, that would not justify the Court in disregarding the evidence. The chief point of law in the case was,, whether the alteration in the memorandum at the foot of the note was material, and vitiated the validity of the bill. It appeared to come within, that class of cases in which it had been held that the alteration formed no part ot the contract. It might be done for the covenience of parties. The alteration was, that the plaintiff, after the printed words, "payable at," in the printed form, inserted the name of a particular bank. This did not appear to affect the contract between the parties, and therefore he concluded that it was no such material alteration. Judgement must be for the plaintiff. Mr. Dufaur : I would ask your Honor to give judgment in writing, as the defendant wishes to appeal. His Honor: The case involves chiefly matters of fact. Mr. Dufaur: Yes, your Honor, but the question, "Whether the alteration was material," is a matter of law. .His Honor : That is so ; very well. 7 Tukner v. Adams.—The Monkey Case. —Judgment.—Mr. Theo. Cooper for the plaintiff; Mr. Cotter for the defendant. His Honor said: This is an action brought ;by the father of an infant to recover damages (£100) for injury sustained throngh bring bitten by a monkey. Evidence was adduced ; at the hearing to determine two points, first as to the nature of of the animal, and next as to the knowledge of the defendant of its nature and character. If an animal of this kind were an animal of a ! domestic nature, like the dog, it would be ' necessary that the plaintiff should prove that defendant was aware of the dangerous characterof this particular animal. Or the matter may be regarded in another waj, 'although the question is not raised by the j particulars whether this animal belonged to the class known as dangerous animals. The I

; evidence of knowledge, if there was any, must be regarded .as,very ,weak.?. The inference intendedito be drawn from the evidence ,in this;'case ■: was "that this same monkey had'.attacked a'child in the same way as on the occasion ''in "'■ question, .and that '■the'fde■fendant was informed of that fact.' The defendant; how ever,'-alleged in the witness box that that.was: a different monkey, which he had; disposed of immediately after the attack -. ''C The . defendant.. also ;la ■witness, :who": swore that he (the witness) was;the person.who had'disposed of ity so that this animal, must be -a different one from that Bpoken; ; of ,as: having-mads : the 'previous attack on ] another.;child..'....''.lt. has :been held;;:.that, where.a defendant after' his dog : had bitten the; I .plaintiff said that he; .would;:;'destroyi the.^Mimal,;'such state:ment \\^as : 'tdi ibe : -\ taken; evidence,. however,slight,' of knowledge.;' In this case .it is shown .by!the evidence/, that' the defendant did' dispose of the monkey ,\yhich did this damage, ahdthe Court might be justified in proof of; some-know-: ledge on -his \part;rf ,- : But the evidence "as to scieuta: 'is B'o;.';'sliglit";';tliat';'.--it.C':'it doubtful whether. : .Court, -''..would'':be-, .justified in gi yipg. j u(i gment for ■ 'theSplaintiff on that ground.:; : :-But there is the : .other] point upon .■which;:the Court would; be justified in giving. judgment "for * the: r plaintilfy.|hamely —as to .-'whether-this' was "animal. .: appeared' an; animal ;"of;■ '■-: .the,;. same tind;^attacked\ 'child i 'jj;- ] ;'that'', ; ;anj"account of the occurrence Iwakvigiven;to the defendant; it was "also in-'eyidehce that this animal attacked other children about the same time' that this, ■child was attacked, .and that., its dangerous, character.in. the neighbourhood was a matter ] of.'.'cbrhinba' knowledge. "-'"Upon .this.view of ithe '.'case .-'iit 'appears,.'to. : ;.me that ; ...is' entitled'to judgment, . sum of ; £25 will cover allthe damage, that' is of. ircpnrse leaving -:out of the /account ...the. Expense's the.plaintiff, was expehses;,.. Judgment.,'for, plaintiff.;.for- £25, : . -with Costs. : £B 19s; .- ''~'')(.' .';:...:^'.v"..:'-"-"i 7 --'.'-'—".' ,L ' : : .;■: ;-. Undefended..: Casej— E...-. ■ Downing.-;, .Nitai;, Titpre;,;. Claiin^.: ,£s(i tye . J6d;;;.'upbn...a promissory.-n :\yith-£4 i'ls costs, "' ■■'.'' ■'.'" . > >;'v.;-.-.'^i' ; ' : ■■" ''"

Re Darwin G.M. Company.—Mr. Tyler applied to the Court, under the 35th section ot the Mining Companies Act, 1572, to amend an error in tho share register cf this company. An affidavit was put in in support of the .application, which was made with the consent of all parties concerned. The error was substituting the name of " White " for that of "Steele " —that ia, inserting the former in the register instead of the latter.—His Honor having read the affidavit, the" legal manager was examined, and proved the error and tho cause of it.— Order made in terms of the application.

Strauguan v. The Blackmore G.-M. Company (Cori'MANDEL). —Claim, £64 Mr. Fiedcrick Earl for the plaintiff, Mr. James Kussell for the defendant company. This was an action to recover salary for four months, alleged to bedue to the plaintiff as mine manager of the defendant's fold mino, from July, ISS2, to October, ISS2". He deposed that he was engaged in September ISBI, and he was paid a salary up to July ISS2. He worked until the tnd of October, for which latter period he was not paid. " His salary was £4 a week, which, -for four months, amounted to the above sum. The case of the defendants waa that plaintiff himself undertook to work the company for threo mouths. He waa to g-1 400 shares in the company for himself, as well as hU wages, if gold sufficient to pay off the liabilities ot the company came out of the mine. It appeared that at a meeting.of the company held on the 21st of July, 1882,- the'following resolution was, passed :—"That as the Blackmore Company was heavily, indebted, and as they (Messrs. Blackmore and Fitzgerald) he'd largely in the mine, they proposedthat they would work the mine for the next three months, or until the company's- liability shoald be paid off; and that the company eho'ild not be held liable by them or by amof i ho men engaged by them for wages." Thisproposal wasagrcedto. Mr. MacDonndl, the legal manager, produced the above resolution, ai.d said that in pursuanco of the above resolution Messrs. Blackmore and Fitzgerald took over the mine to work it without any liability. Cross-examined by Mr. Earl : The witness said that the gold taken out of the mine waa to go to tho company. Bhckmore and Fitzgerald were not to have anj profit by working the mine. Shortly after October a meeting of" directors passed the following resolution :—"That a sum of £25 be paid to Messrs. Fitzgerald and Blackmore in consideration of their services in working the mine since 21st of July." The arrangement for working the mine was an arrangement between Blackmore and Stranghan, and not between Straughan and thu company." It appeared in the course of the hearing that Straughan had engaged workmen to whom be offered 200 -hares, and trie current wages for three months, if gold sufficient was got to pay from mine wages. One of these men sued for his wages, and received £4 from Mr. Blackmore, as bringing a esse at that time into Court would have affected negotiations then on . foot for th" amalgamation of the "Blackmore Company's" mine with the "Home. Rule" mine. Both these men alleged that Blackmore said on several occasions that the wages of these mi n W'.ukl bo pa.d. Mr. Earl contended that the agreemuit to hand over the mine to be worked oy B'uckmore and Fitzgerald was in the nature of a contract which should be iu wiiting. Mr. Russell contended that this waa no iuterest inland. Nothing was given to Messrs. Blackmore and Fitzgerald. The gold got out of the mine was the property of the comp.iny. His Honor was ot opinion tbe agreement waa good as between the company and Blackmore. Nothing was transferred ; nothing got out of the mine was to become the property of any other person. Philip Henry Blackmore deposed that' ho owned betwttu 5000 and 6000 shares.--'His partner, Fitzgerald, owned about 7000 shares. The.compauy was in difficulties in July, ISS2. vWitness thought a call would como Very heavy upon them, being the holders of sui:h a large number of shares. He proposed to ask the company to work the mine free of expense to the company. He mentioned to fie plaintiff that he was coming to Auckland to get a resolution passed, if possible, to the above effect. He asked the plaintiff whuther he would continue as mine manager for three months upon certain conditions. At first the plaintiff did not assent, bat subsequently he accepted the offer. The witness denied that he had ever offered

wages to Stranghan. The reason was thaiha could sot have offered the plaintiff wages/ as he waa not getting anything himself. Witness in cross-examination admitted the plaintiff, did once say to him that if gold enough came, out of the mine to pay tho wages, he would expect his salary paid. There was a call of Is on the 400 shares. Witness believed that the plaintiff was aware of this call. The plaintiff was to get nothing but the 400 shares. Michael Corcoran deposed that he had a conversation with the plaintiff about the terms of working the mine. Wuness told hira he was to get no wages, and Straughan understood he was fcv get do wages. The plaintiff was called, and denied absolutely that he had ever had such a conversation with Corcoran—that Coreoran s evidence was absolutely false. Counsel on either side having been heard, His Honor intimated that upon the evidence the plaintiff was entitled to judcment with costs. The Court adjourned to 10.30 on Tuesday morning, when judgment will be formally delivered, and the case of Elias v. McLeod will be called.

: POLICE CO CRT.—Monday. - [Bofore H. G. Seth Smith, Esq., K.M.] Neglected and Destitute Chtxdken. William Negus was sued to coutribute to thesupport of his daughter, Josephine, an inmate of the St. Mary's Orphanage. Sergeant Smith, who has been appointed by the Government to see after the enforcement of payment of this nature, prosecuted, and an order was made for payment of 53 a week. Peter Peterson was sued to contribute to the support of his step children, Charles and Christina Picton, inmates of the Howe-street Industrial School,.was ordered to pay 2s a week for each ; and Carl Smith, for tbe support of his children, Charles and William Smith, inmates of the Kohimaramara Training School, was ordered to pay 2s a week for each. [Before Mr- F. L. Prime, J,l'.] Drunkenness —David McFarlaiie, charged, with being diunk and disorderly in Queenstreet, was fined 40s and coats, with the alternative of 14 days' imprisonment. David Mills, alias Putty, charged with a similar i offence at Newmarket, was remanded till next day. Three others were punished for ordinary offences of drunkenness. : 1 Threatening Language.—Henry Parsons, on warrant, was charged with using threatening language towards his wife, Mary Ann Parsons, by stating that he " would do for her." He pleaded not guilty. Mrs. Parsons gave evidence as to the conduct of the accused, and the language he made use of. They were living separate, and he came to her house, abused her, tried to break in, ami tore down a notice off the window, where she advertised rooms to let. They were only married in June last, both had children, and.it was a most unhappy marriage for both parties. She did not wish to : punish, hira; for the sake of his children, but she claimed' some protection. Defendant was bound over in his own recognizances of £20 for eix months not to molest hi 3 wife.