LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 6935, 8 February 1884, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

R.M. CO ORT.—Thursday. [Before H. fi. Seth Smitb, Esq., R.M.J T/.ie weekly Sitting of the Court to hear a'od determine small debt claims was held ' his morning, and the following cases disposed of: — U-N DEFENDED CA3ES (JUDGMENTS FOB Plaintiffs). —Jas. Kelly v. Thomas Revel), £10 6s Bd, coats £2 5s ; John Leek v. James Johnston, £18 7s lOd, costs £2 163; R. Hutchinson v. Thomas Hewlett, £1 12s, costs £1 28 6d. Judgment Debts.—Thomas Fanlder v. Bernard McDonald, £3 18a. The defendant did not appear, and an order was made that he pay the amount within a week, or suffer five days' imprisonment. John Leek v. William Moore. The defendant appeared and was examined; ordered to pay £6 12s 6d by instalments of 10s per month, or 10 days' imprisonment in default. Adjourned.—John Leek v. C. W. S. Purdie, £S 16s lid ; H. and J. Binstead v. Michael Ryan, £3 17s 6d ; John Sperry v. Henry Palmer, £19 9d lis ; Union Sa-h and Door Company v. S. A. Wood, £21 6s Id ; W. McArthur and Co. v. J. A. Cooper, £33 4s 3d ; S. H. Webb v. W. H. Webbe, £6 Ids 6d ; Charles O. Hart v. William Butler, £6 ; H. Fountain v, George Wheaton, £1 10s 6d. McLennan v. Garrick : (Judgment).— Mr. Theo. Cooper for plaintiff; Mr. Cave for defendant. His Worship delivered judgment in this case, heard at a previous sitting of the Court. The action was brought to recover damages for the nonperformance of an agreement to sell certain premises in Hobson-street. The plaintiff paid £5 deposit; subsequently tendered the balance of price, £20, in bank notes and sovereigns, after that tender was refused,tbat the bargain was off. His Worship now said the action waa brought upon an agreement for the sale of an interest in real property. The question raised at the hearing of the case was whether the agreement went off in consequence of there being an error or defect in the defendant's title. If it went off in consequence of defect of title, then the case of Bain v. Fothergill would apply, aud no damages could be recovered. But if any other ground were pleaded by the defendant, then damages could be obtained. It was not because the defendant had a defective title that he refused to perform the agreement. The Court was of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to recover. Judgment for £20; for £15 if the £5 deposit were returned.

Moses v. Cozens.—Mr. Theo. Cooper for the plaintiff; Mr. A. E. Whitaker for the defendant. The circumstances of this eaatwere rather peculiar. Tne plaintiff is a bill discounter. The defendant was described as agent for the schooner Explorer. The action was brought to recover an instalment of an order for money drawn on the defendant by Captain Minchin, master of the .Explorer, and accepted by the defendant. The order directed that the defendant should pay to the plaintiff, on Minchin's behalf, £20 by quarterly instalments : £4 10s on the 21st of May, £4 10s on the 21st of June, and £4 lOi on the 21st of July. The third instalment had not been paid, the reason assigned being that Minchin was not at that date the master of the Explorer. The plaintiff deposed that be accepted the order produced. Mr. Whitaker objected to the admissibility of the order, on the ground that it was a " bill of exchange," not payable on demand, and being a bill of exchange, must have a shilling stamp; that it shall not be deemed duly stamped if it have a merely adhesive stamp. Under tbe subsection 2 of section 78 of the St*mp Act, a person could not recover upon such an instrument unless properly stamped. His Worship: The definition of a bill of exchange is given in the 69th section. Under that section, this document must be regarded as a bill of exchange. Mr. Theo. Cooper : If that is tbe decision of the Court, the plaintiff must take a nonsuit. I apprehend that the defendant must pay the costs. It is the fault of Mr. Cozens that the document was not properly stamped. Mr. A. E. Whitaker: Certainly not. Mr. Cozens had nothing to do with it. Mr. Moses came here with the document to sue npon. He tenders it in evidence. The consequences should be upon him. I think the bill ought to be impounded. His Worship : I know nothing of the merits, but if the plaintiff comes here with a document improperly stamped, he must abide the risk. Ronsuited with costs against the plaintiff.

BighsM v. Mullally.—Claim, £14 6s. Mr. Theo. Cooper for the plaintiff; Mr. Keetley for the defendant. The plaintiff is a farmer, and the defendant a contractor. The claim was for "green stuff," &0., supplied to the defendant. The defence was that a quantity of firewood was given in liquidation of the account. The particulars were wholly matters of account. His Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff for £13 13s lOd.

Dalton v. Clabk : Claim, £10 ss.—Mr. S. Besketh for the plaintiff, Mr. Theo. Cooper for the defendant. This was an action to recover for services rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff is a civil engineer, and patent agent. He agreed to do the work connected with making the applications for three patents (including specifications, drawings, etc.), for £13. lie did the work which was necessary. Drawing specification and copying plans and copy of specification, £5 ss; (2) drawing specifications, copying plans, and copying specification, £7 7s; (3) making application for patent for "simple attachment for throwing machinery out of gear," copying plans, specification, &c,, £3 3s. Credit was given for £5 10s on account. After the plaintiff's evideuce parties intimated that there was a chance of settlement if they might retire for a short time. After a brief conference the defendant's counsel announced that the defendant was willing to pay the plaintiff £5, and costs £3 Ss.

Lindsey v. Taiwhanga.—Mr. Jackson Palmer for the plaintiff. This was an action for goods sold and delivered to the defendant and his wife. The plaintiff supplied Mrs. Taiwhanga with a hat, dress, and other articles; she also accommodated Mr, and Mrs. Taiwhanga with board and lodging. The total amouut was £7 Is. But the plaintiff admitted the receipt of cash, £3 10j, from Mr. Earl, solicitor, and other sums, leaving a balance of £1 lis, for which plaintiff sued. The wife of the plaintiff deposed to the particulars of the claim, and was cross-examined by the defendant (Sydney Taiwhanga), eliciting the following replies: — Mrs. Taiwhanga was to have board and lodging, and the dress ; but if sbe got drunk the plaintiff was to put her out cf the house. But there was no understanding agreed to that payment for the dress was on cundition of Mrs. Taiwhanga keeping sober. The defendant said that his wife got drunk, and was taken to the lock-up. He knew nothing about the hat. He believed a charge. was made that his wife broke something. Mrs. Sydney Taiwhanga was examined, and said that the dress was paid for ; that she took the hat against her will; that when she got on a " bit of a spree" the plaintiffs wife, in an underhand manner, sent a message to h. r husband, thinking that he would thrash her a second time. The hat was a bit of a thing with two " sixpenny feathers" stuck in it. His Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff for £1,

Lawxor v, Courtney. — Claim, £10. Mr; Theo. Copper for the plaintiff; Mr. Cotter for the defendant. This was an action for eight weeks' wages at 25a per week. The plaintiff is a tailor. The defendant was purchaser of the business of one McKonna, and took over that business on July 5, ISS3, The trustees of McKennas creditors interpleaded and defendant was found to be the owner of goods and business. The present plaintiff now deposed that at the date of McKenna's being arrested the defendant promised to pay the wage* The wages for which he sued included *he first week of T uly. An affidavit by the witness vat read, 'n which he p' 'ted that McKeuna paid his wages for the whole of July. But theie appeared to be a great contention between e principal persuns concerned, namely, Courtney, Mc Kenna, a d Sullivan. Courtney had paid£27o to Francis AfoKenna and Sullivan, but he heard that these men were drinking, and jjooda and business going to the bad. There was u good deal of "rowing" between them. The defendant sei-ed under a jul errant execution. The defendant denied his li»b : '.'ty to Lawlur, because Frarnia McKt nna had paid him. The plaintiff was examined, and proved the particulars of the claim, Michael McKenna and Henry Eake" were examined in respect to the contests between Mckenna, Courtney, and Sullivan for the possession and ownership of * certain shop and goods. Mr. Cotter, in mcvi for a nonsuit, de- > noun 3d the sta+emeng cf .he plaintiff as a

barefaced attempt to obtain a judgment In face of a sworn affidavit, which waa in absolute contradiction of all that had been sworn by him that day in the witness-box. Either one or othfr of the statements of the plaintiff must be " absolute perjnry." Mr. Cooper said the conduct of Courtney was to be reprobated. He took everything from the tailor's shop. The Bench should ba mindful that an affidavit might be made, the deponent not being wholly cognisant of the facts to which he deposed. Three persons were contesting the right to certain goods. One of them presented the affidavit already prepared to be Binned by the deponent, and it was signed probably without time for consideration as to the effect of it. The Court should look to the evidence taken before the Court. By that the plaintiff had proved four weeks, and he was entitled to recover £5 in any case. His Worship said the affidavit was specifio for specific purpose, and very explicit. He must have had so little regard to what he stated that his evidence must be looked at very closely. Tho pliintiff must be held bound by that affidavit. Nonsuited.

POLICE CO CRT.—Thursday. [Bafore Bis Worship the Mayor and Mr. C. C. Mo Millan, J.P.'a] Indecest Assault.—William Alison was again brought up on a charge of unlawfully and indecently assaulting Amy Giles, at the North .-hore, on the Ist inst. Senior Sergeant White conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Theo. Cooper defended prisoner. A boy named George Shearer and Constable Hutchinson gave evidence. Mr. Cooper then addressed the Court for the defence, and analysed at some length the evidence of the prosecution, to show that there was no assault committed, as was alleged. He a»ked the Bench to dismiss the casa, as there was not sufficient evidence to raise strong pre. sumption of guilt; and he contended that no jury could convict on the evidence produced. After a short deliberation the Bench dismissed the case. Sergeant White then laid a charge of common assault against William Alison. Defendant pleaded not guilty. De« fendant was fined 10s and coats. [Before Mr. W. R. Waddel, J.P.] Breach of the Peack.—John Daniel was charged with behaving in a public place, Custom-street, whereby a breach of the peace was occasioned, on the 6ch February. Defendant pleaded guilty. Sergeant Donnelly gave evidence. Fined 10s and costs, or in default, seveo days' imprisonment. Breaking and Entering.—Ge .rge Evans Sawyer, alias George Evans, alias Jamea Scanlon, alias George Lovett, was charged with breaking and entering the dwelling, house of Mary Coyle by night, and stealing therefrom one pair of gold earrings and case, one gold watch and chain, two gold rings and case, two and a-half pairs kid gloves, the property of James Lefevre, worth £19 10s, on the 19th ult. Mary Coyle, licensee of the Wharf Hotel, Ellen Coyle, Abraham James Lefevre, and Sergeant McMation gave evidence. Prisoner was committed for trial at the next criminal sessions of the Supreme Court.

TVAIUKU R.M. COURT

Friday, February 1, 1884 [Before Thomas Jackson, Esq., R.U.J Bennitt v. Constable.—Claim £2 2s, fop seven tons firewood taken from defendant's property. The plaintiff said : In July ia«t he bought twenty tons of firewood from tha defendant. He took away between twelve and thirteen tons, the remainder had been taken away by defendant. The quantity of firewood was in three lots, viz., aix tons, four tons, and ten tons, for which he paid. There was So tons of firewood altogether. Twenty tons I sold the plaintiff, 50 tons to Mr. Sedgwick, and kept the remaining 15 t"na for myself. I took away 7£ tons. I left the carting of the 50 tons to Mr. Hill, which was delivered to Mr. Sedgwick. I spoke to plaintiff and asked him if he had all his wood away as I was 7£ tons short. He said there was a mistake somewhere, Sedgwick muafc have more than his quantity as he was a lot short. I measured all the wood before pay. ing for the splitting ; there were 85 tons good measure. Ido not know where the balanoe of the wood is; I have not taken it away. To plaintiff : I do not koow how many heaps of wood there were altogether now. Walter Hill said : I carted the firewood from MrJ Constable's land, for Mr. Sedgwick. I think there were six heaps, which made the 50 tons. I carted the whole of the 50 tons myself, for which I received 2s 6d per ton. I did not see anyone carting at the time I was. The plaintiff would not go in at the same entrance aa I did. Mr. Constable was not! cartiDg at the same time as I was. To plain' tiff: All the firewood I carted was measured' on the ground before carting, and I did not cart any more than the 50 tons measured. Joseph Birkett said : I am in the employ of Mr. Constable, and have done some car tint? of firewood from Mr. Constable. The crossexamination of plaiutiff, and examination of G. Bennett, eon of plaintiff, the defendant Walter Hill, who carted a portion of Mr! Constable's wood, and Joseph Birkett, were so contradictory and unsatisfactory that the Magistrate recorded a non-suit, with costs.— The Court then rose,—jOwn Correspondent February I.]

MANGONUI R.M. COURT

[Before H. W. Bishop, Esq., R.M.] Tuesday, January 15. Bowman v. Masters.— John Bowman, who resides at Ahipara.tiasafarm near Pukepoto, and in this he planted about three acres of corn and one of potatoes. The defendant, C. M. Masters, teacher of the native school, resides close to this farm of Bowman's, and it appeared from the evidence that the defendant's cattle had destroyed the crops. The plaintiff claimed £20 for the damage done, but owing to the property not being inclosed with a legal fence, the Court did not inflict a heavy fine. Pined £2 and costs, amounting to £8 5s ; total, £10 ss. —[Own Correspondent January IS. ]