LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XX, Issue 6822, 28 September 1883, Page 6

LAW AND POLICE.

DISTRICT COURT.—Thursday. [Before E.G. Seth Smith, Esq:, Judge., and a jury of four]. Ak adjourned sitting of the Court was held this morning. Elias v. J. and A. McLeou.—Claim £100. Mr. T. Cotter for the plaintiff; Mr. S. Hesketh for the defendants, 'the hearing of this case was resumed this morning (third day). His Honor, in summing up, spoke to the following effect:—The question of the navigability of the creek, although important in itself, was not material to the decision of the other questions as to the trespass on the plaintiffs land and the damage by floating the logs. The Timber Floating Actrof 1573 provided for a license to be obtained, and the Land Amendment Act of ISS2 contained a clause specially applicable to a case o£ this description, viz., (72) : " Any person who shall, without being the holder of a license under the Timber Floating Act of 1573, raft or float, or cause to be rafted or floated either by himself or his workmen, any logs, lumber, timber, firewood, posts, rails, or other wood, flax, gum, or other substance, shall be liable to a penalty of not more than*£so for every day. But this provision is without prejudice to all the. rights and remedies conferred by the last-mentioned Act upon the owners and occupiers of lands on the banks or along the course .of any, such river, stream, or tidal creeki aforesaid." . The defendants had no license. It would appear, therefore, that the defendants committed a breach of the law in floating timber iu this creek without a . license.. . .But in any case, assuming that the creek was a navigable stream, the defendants \vould be responsible for any damage they might cause.. The fact of their being oil the plaintiffs laud engaged in 'what proved to:be a : breach ot the law was not only a trespass, but ..they were unlawfully there, doing a wrongful act, . which of itself would probably entit'e the plaintiff to some damage. The Jaw as to navigable creek's, from tbe cases quoted, would appear to ; be that any creek,' stream;: or water course; ''which provided; what was called any "valuable floatage,'i' was to,.be.regarded as n&ifigable. . He proposedrto. submit to the jury a number,., of questions > as to matteis of fact- before :he would give .auy deoision aa to the ques-. 1 tion ot -V navigability. .;■■■■:■ Asto< th'e : ..other, questions—the-: value cf the abridge, the damage; actually done- to:, the .land, ..the loss and incouveniense-to thcplaintiff. through its.. , being swept; a.way, whether the plaintiff was entitled to auy aggravated" Sdmage..through the conduct of the.defendants' workmen to the plaiutiff's. wife. : Tnese the-.iury Avould answer upon the evidence; adduced " before" them. In order, however,' to determine the character, of the stream, he. put as to its height, depth, i force of current, -&c. ; i be.remaining questions presented no serious' difficulty. ' The jury retired to .consider their verdict at- a quarter,-past, ten' a.m.;- aid at balfipast ,one : (having been ' three hours. ins deliberation) returned into "Court with the; follb.wing'iss'ues found 1.-la'- the. creek, of ; such a nature .that .timber will float in. it at any,- time ? During freshes. ' 2.; If so, how .often during the year ? and . what.' length of 'time ? "Five times in the year.; from; six :.tO/ ;twelve hours according to .rainfall.: 3. Is it suitable for floating at vany .time except; during freshes? ? No.. ■ 4.' What depth of ;water is there in .the creuk in its ordinary state and during freshts ? . Six inches ordinary ; from five to" ten, feet during freshc3. 5. What is. the velocity of the ; stream ? - In: ordinary state its; force :is.-of no amount ; • during freshes from: six to : eight miles .per h«ur.'- v ,6. Would;it be .. possible.'- to', steer .'or 1 .float timber logs ?.: They iriust be guided- so ; as to keep them away, from the . banks.. ;. 7.Assuming that the defendants 'were entitled to use the creek.'did they use all reasonable care to prevent injury- to the- banks ? No; S Was the -.plaintiil : s bridge carried, away by the water 1 alone or by - the logs and water conjointly.?. We believe the bridge wouM have resisted.the.freshes if the logs, had- not been in the creek.- 9. If <:carried away, -by the logs what would be. the value of the bridge ? £10. 10. What further damage or inconvenience did the plaintiff sustain in rconscquence of the loss of the bridge ? ■ £10. i 11. Have ' the banks ;of. the creek been damaged by the logs ? Yes. -.*l2; If. 'so to 'wli»t. amount? £10. 13. Did the; defendants go on the plantifTs land for the purpose of jacking logs ? Yes.: 14. Did they do auy unreasonable- 'or unnecessary damagetothe : banks of the creek ? No. 15. If.so, what amount of-damage was actually done ?. Not-auy..- ■ 16: Was.any.iu:sulfcing language used -to .Mrs. .Elias, or proper demeanour on the part of the defendants' men? The demeanour of 'the defendants' men was insulting; 17. If so,, what: amount should be paid, in the way _of ; aggravated damages to-the. plaintiff ? ■18;. Do you think.the lojs'were likely to. be carried over, the plaintiff's bridge, without striking it ?, The small logs were likely "to pass {[over:..it, but . the . large ; oneSi not so.Verdict for the plaintiff,- damages 1 £45; with cost. £28 12a. His Honor said before giving ..toy- decision upon' the'question' of navigability .he ..should like to hear the question more fully argued by counsel. It was tfot absolutely necessary, but the tion. appeared to be regarded as important to the public. After some discussion, as to.-, the most convenient day, Monday the. Ist of October was fixed to hear counsel upon that and .any other legal questions in the ' .pause... '

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT:. THURSDAY. CBofore'. Hs G/Seth SmUiiVEsql, R.M.] The weekly sitting of the G.nufc to hear and. determine small /debt claims was held :this\ morning-, arid, the .following cases posed of UNDEFENDED (JUDGME!JT..FOR : PIaIXTIFE): —Hancock and Co. v. Kaffin, £27 16s; costs, £5 123; John King: v; W 11. Dowling, £10 ; costs, £2 6s. Edward White v. A. W. Burnett, £13. 18s; . costs, £2 ,'ssi -James Cooley v. H. E. Stehr,. £1 IS's Gd;-coats, 12s. James.Johnston v.- James' Macgregor, £20 19s Ba.; costs, £4 13s; The same v* John Riddcll, £1 Ss Gd; costs, 17a 6d. John Leek v. G, W. Friend, £5 Is 2d ; costs; £1 17a. R. Fooler and Go. v. Mrs; Cadman, £13 13s ; costs, £1 4s. Wilson, Harroway. and Co. .. v. John Robinson; £2S 16s 9.i ; costs, £4 13s. R. Arthur v. E. Addison, £10 IGstOd.; . costs; £2i George Gled.,hill v., R. J;-Glover, :£6 6s ; costs, £i 17s. Judgmknt Dkbts. —Job n King .v. Hamiora Maungakahia, £33 6s 7d. Defendaßt did not appear. . He was'ordered to.pay £33 Sa 7d on . or before the 27th'October, or in default one month's imprisonment. A. E. Glover v. Charles Palmer; £1 Ss. Defendant did not . appear.. Ordered to pay £1 Ss .by instalments of 5s a week, or live days'imprisonment. Jambs Rae v. J. P. Morgan, £14 lGs. Defendant did not appear, nnd was. ordered to pay .by instalments of 7s, 6d a. week, or in dbfaiult days' imprisonment. . Adjouknei).—John King v. Bridget -Nblan, £8 1.7s ; George Dunnett v. Ernest Hill, £50 ; Garrett Bros. v. H. Jacobs, £10 43 6d ; Thomas Constable v. Samuel H. Webb, £12. DEKENDKU CASKS. • Gilfoylk v. Usiox Sash axd Door Company, £39 0s !)d, Mr. Theo. Cooler for plain-' tifl; Mr. C. E. Button for' the defendant.. The plaintiff is a bushman employed at the defendants' bush and mill, I'airua. Last Christmas time an order was given to him for £39 odd, but this order he lost while on board the steamer between Mercury Bay. and Auckland. The defendants m such cases do not: pay lost orders.until after the'expiry-of sis months, and then only upon certain conditions. It appeared that some time after his : loss the plaintiff ''offered" his interest in the' order to' . Henry . Laycoek, ; a boardinghouse-" keeper, but. both parties referred to Mr. Ross, the bush manager for the company, to ascertain whether he would ratify such a J transaction; but Mr. Ross would . have.) nothiug to do with.thn matter. Some : time I after the plaintiff asked Laycock for an advance of £20, which amount was paid to plaintiff., i'ne contention on behalf of the plaintiffiwas that this £20 was a loan from Laycock. to the plaintiff. : Mr; Laycock deposed that it was an absolute sale of 'the plaiutiff'a interest in the order. The preseht-defeudauts.still-held?.the money, and refuspil to payth'e plaintiff iiintil.he made his title; good, to receive it; .They were wdling to pay* either, Gilfoyle or Laycock, whichever had good.title.-The merits of : the? case therefore .lay- between l . G ilfoylo and Laycock. Mr, Button . moved for a. nonsuit, on the ground , that the transaction between; the plaintiff and' Laycock. - wasan '' irrevocable assignment" of the debt; . Mr. - Cooper- contended that the assignment w«s not irrevocable... His. Worship reserved his j decision in order to consider the legal issue raised.

POLICE COURT.—Thursday. ' [Before Captain Daldy and Mr. F. L. Prime, J.P.'s.] Drunkenness.—One man was punished for this, offence.

Assault on Shipboard. —William Sturgens and James Hoult were charged with assaulting C. A. Petersen, by catching hold of him, throwing him down, striking him against the vessel, and tying his feet and hands together, on the 25th inst."Sturgeas pleaded not gailty, and Hoult guilty. Mr. Earl appeared for complainant, a Swede. Complainant, a carpenter on the ship Grasmere, deposed that on the 25th inst. he wan engaged at his ordinary work, -when he was accused of spoiling a plank. The boatswain subsequently struck him with a broomhandle. The boatswain and mate then struck compainant, and knocked him down. His hands and feet were tied, and it was five minutes before he could release himself. Sturgeus assisted in the tying of the hands and feet. Complainant's head was knocked against the deck, and Sturgeus took past in doing so. Frederick Moreman, carpenter's assistant, deposed that on the day in question the boatswain ordered Petersen to procure a brush, but Petersen refused. The mate then ordered Petersen to get the brush, but he again with an oath refused to do so. Petersen took a pair of compasses out of his pocket and held them in a threatening attitude. The boatswain then attempted to take the compasses oat of his hands. Sturgeus called the captain and one of the ship hands as witnesses. In his statement the mate (Sturgeus) denied that violence had been used. Petersen had been fouud incompetent to perform his duties as carpenter, and therefore he had been asked to do work that the carpenter of a ship was not usually asked to do. The Court discharged Sturgeus, and Hoult was ordered to be kept iu cus.tpdy till the rising of jthe Court. Seamen's Wages.— Captain T. Raymond ■ was charged with refusing to pay the sum of £16 10s. due as wages to C. A. Petersen, on board the ship ■ Grasmere. Defendant admitted that the money was due, but said; that it was usual to p»y it at the termination of the voyage, when discharged. Case dismissed. - ' 1 "'

WAIIUKU POLICE COURT. Wednesday, Sbptember 19. . [llefore E; Hamlin, and H. Crispo, Esqs., j.r.'s.] Breach OffekcW Against the Person Acr.. 1367. — Henry P. Ford was brought up on Warrant and charged wi-h having on th® public road, at. Pollok, fired a gun at one Xboir.as : Brownlie, junr., with intent to do him grevious bodily harm. . Prisoner pleaded not. guilty. Prosecutor deposed: On the 13th September I went to catch my horse opposite. : prisoner's , farm. Saw prisoner working, and called out. that I wanted to speak .'to him. As he made no reply, I crossed . the road, and asked prisoner Why- lie ■ "struck-and abused my father the nigiifc before. Prisoner'made no reply, and I said, Ford, the'next time you strike my father,' you/ will remember it when you see ; me again;" Receiving no reply, '! said " Ford, doyoahear." flereplied " Youb—, I will do foe you," and rushed into his house, fetched out' a- loaded gun, and told me to come .up to his gate and he would blow some part of me out., I crossed the road, got on my horse and''when about 2 J chains away, I heard a', shot. ' I - turned round and saw prisoner lowering his: gun. 1 The smoke was coming.out of it. ,:I-called to his wife that she was a witness. The" gun. produced is the one fired at me. It is prisoner's. Prisoner, and I have had no quarrel.—Thomas .Brownlie senr. deposed : i heard a shot fired about 2 p.m.', on the 13th September. ; - After that I saw my son coming home ' riding. When I sa\v:him'corning to the house, I stsid to my ,wife. ;''Here's Tom coming. I am afraid there is something wrong." . When my son came to the house he said "I've got him now ; :ho has discharged . his gun at me." I 'was not present, saw nothing, but merely heard the report of the gun.—Constable ■ Parker, gave evidence as to arresting prisoner. The bench thought' there was .not enough evidence to commit the prisoner for; trial, and dismissed theinformation.- -

. Assault- and- Baiteky:—Brownlie senr. ••vi .Ford.—Defendant pleaded not guilty. Complainant ; deposed On the , 12th. .Sept., .1 was going;' to a meeting,, and,: ; met , de-. fendant who said,. " When are, you going to i return those posts you stole . from mel said " Henry, what posts." .-.'He'.,struck.me ion , the ■ jaw: with - his- clenched fist. I said ••••"Henry don't do' that." He then kicked me twicej "and tried to do- so a third time. The. assault, took place on a public road. I have endeavoured for 1?> years tolivfe on good terms.with<• defendant.. .He lias often used provoking language to me..... He is a' dangerous .neighbour;s. beingl insame. at certain, times.— James ~>Ola'rk ■ junr; ! deposed :i-On September :13 I, was tto look out, as Ford was "in. one:: of his mad fits again. . Oh last:: Saturday .'.was on my way to" Mr. v Brownlie's. -At; ahout 300 yards from house? Imet him,, carrying - a double-barrelled guni : I. had got past him about 10' yards when he turned round and presented it at me. vi pissed on atasharp trot, saying " You.cowardly scoundrel, you'll suffer for this yet." '.He-"-has-'.threatened to , burri...m'y housei ,or do some injury .to my family. I was present when he was arrested,' and assisted to handcuSf-him.-rJ.ime-s Hedley and Thomas Cochrane gave .corroborative evidence of the defendant's "conduct,: being most alarming -to the Pollok settlers, and defendant was bound over, to keep the peace for six months' himself in £100 and t.vo 'spcurities.:of £50 each:,. As defendant could not : find bail, he' was committed to gaol.— ,[Own Correspondent; September 20.1