LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXII, Issue 7269, 6 March 1885, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

BANKRUPTCY.— Mjjetmjg of Crkditobs. H. A. EiiiaoN.r—A meeting of creditors in this estate, which was to have been held yesterday, lapsed fur want of a quorum, and stands adjourned until two o'clock to-day. The debtor was present, and intimated that he would be prepared with a proposition to pay his creditors in fall at three, eix, and nino mouths. R.M. COURT.—Thobsdat, [Before B, O. Scthh, Kiq. t B.M.] The weekly sitting of the R.M. Court was held yesterday to hear and determine email debt cases, and the following business was disposed of :— Judgments job Plaintiff. — Kipg v. Kelly, £2, costs £1 2s 6d; Johnson v. Bassett. £4 03 4<l, costs £1 16s ; Walter Dowden v\ Weeks and Dower, £21 ss, coats £5 6s; Mucky v. R. Sephtpn, £24 4s 6d, costs £5 6s; F. G. Ewington v. Charles Wood and others, £13 Is su, costs £2 18s; A. Buekland v. Joseph Buchanan, £8 12a 6d, costs £1 16s; Apple Farm Company v. Matthew Robinson, £7 15*, costs £1 5s 6d ; Gillmaa v. Thomas Reid, £218 a 6d, costs 15s ; Margaret Morton v. Arthur Haywood, £1, costs £1 5s 6d ; Brown, Barrett, and Co. y. Baker, £6 12s, coats 10s; fl. R. Jpnea r, F. William?. £4, costs £2 6s; Morrow v. Francis Dyer, £1 Is 2d, coßts 15s ; Levy v Richard Sephton, £18 15b, costs £2 14s. Immediate execution was granted in this sase, Judgment Debtor Summonses.—Boylan and 1 anlicld v. Robertson: Debit, £5 13s Sil. Ordered to pay £1 a month, or in default seven days' imprisonment. John Jones v. Hamlyn : The debt was £15 19a 6d. Ordered to pay in three equal monthly iustalments, or in default 21 days , imprisonment. M. Cohen v. McDonnelly : The debt was £5 Oβ 6d. Adjourned, for two months. Davies v. Haigeton :£2 3s 4d. Ordered to pay 5a a week, or in default five days' imprisonment. Mrs. Kelly v. J. C. Churfcqn : £2 4s 7d. Ordered to pay £1 on the 21st asd the balance at 5s a fortnight, or in default five days' imprisonment. J as. Slater v, —. Mclntobh : £13 7s. Ordered to pay in three equal monthly instalments, or in default 14 days' imprisonment iveesing v. "J. Keid: ordered to pay £10 at , the rate of 5s per week, or in default, five days' imprisonment. Sandall v. Bevin : Ordered to pay £11 7*, in instalments of 103 per week, or in default, fourteen days' imprisonment, Sloane v. Jamee Jinvin : £3 lls'.Sd, Ordered to pay in a fortnight in equal instalments, or in default, five days' imprisonment, ROBRRTSOJ* V. PAtJL AND GOGLD.—Mr. Franklin appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Theo, Cooper for the dtfence. The claim was for £4 Is. Mr. Cooper contended that the bill of particulars was insufficient. Messrs. Paul and Gould had no knowledge of the claim, and no account had ever been rendered to them. The affair, it appeared, aro#e out of the bankruptcy of Mr, Fisher. The case was adjourned, and costs 15s 6d allowed to the defendants. Devore a;*d Cooper y. Johnston and Setkbhy.— This was a claim for £4 5s 6d costs, Mr. Cooper appeared for the plaintiffs. The defendant Sheehy deposed that a bill of costs was furnished to him for preparing a deed of lease, but he denied his liability on the ground that Mr. Johnston alone was responsible. Mr. Devore gave evidence of receiving instructions for the preparation of the lease from Johnston to cSheehy. Both were together, and he received his instructions from both. The defendant, Benjamin Johnston, deposed that i he only received the bill of costs when he received the summons. The instructions for tbe.preparation pf the deed were given by Sheehy to secure the place for four years. Judgment was given against both the defendants for £4 5s fri, and costs, 19s. ■Hunt v. L,kbbnz.— Mr. Cooper appeared ' for the defendant. Plaintiff did not appear, and the cose was struck out with costs against ihe plaintiff of £1 6s. Polson v, Jxffbby.—-This was a olaim for £1 15b. Mr. Napier appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. George for the defence. £1 13s 6d had been paid, and Mr. .Napier said the \ plaintiff accepted that. Mr. George applied for costs on the ground that a letter was received from the plaintiffs solicitor, claiming 16s more, and if that was not paid they would proceed for judgment. Mr. Napier contended that costs should not be allowed, as they were entitled at any time to accept a payment up to the time the case was called. Mr. Georqe, however, contended that he had come prepared to defend the action, and had brought two witnesses. Mr Napier then elected to proceed with the case to recover the Is 6d balance. The claim was, in the first place, £1 10s, but ! there were 5s costs of summons, making it £1 15s, and plaintiff received £1 13s 6d in settlement after the summons was issued. The plaintiff gave evidence, and was crossexamined as to the items of the account. Thomas F. Smith, who paid the £113s 6d on nehalf of Mr. Jeffrey, also gave evidence. Poison received the £1 10s in payment of i ais account, and the 3s Cid in part payment of the costs of a lawyer's letter. Plaintiff was nonsuited, with costs £1 0s 6d. His Worship added that it was clear the plaintiff had coin promised the matter, after which the defendant received a letter accusing him of impudent fraud, and claiming 16e which was not due. The defendant was fully entitled to appear and defend the action. John Woodyeabv. J. C. MacCobmick.— This was a olaim to recover £5, a cheque given in settlement of a claim for work done in alterations to offices, <fce. Mr. Keetley appeared for the plaintiff, and the defendant conducted his own case. The plaintiff was examined as to the work done, and the time during which he was employed, and was cross-examined by the defendant. He denied I that he was directed cot to .present the cheque he received, or that he had seen the defendant write anything on the butt of the cheque : all he knew was that he got aorossed cheque, and although he passed it through one of the leading houses in town, it was re turned to him. The defendant then gave his version of the affair. Walter Mountford, accountant, was also examined for the defence, relative to a conversation that had passed between the plaintiff and the defendant as to cheques tor £3 and £5, which plaintiff had, and which were to bo given uppn payment by Mr. MacCormick of £5. ss. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £5, the amount of his claim, snd costs, £116s. ' Edmonds v. J. Speaby.—Mr, Browning appeared for the defence. This was a claim to recover £3 7s for work and labour. The plaintiff had arranged with the defendant to alter a house for the defendant on day labour, and put it habitable. The defence was that plaintiff left the work without completing, and that he absented himself from the work. The plaintiff deposed that he was only employed as a carpenter on day labour to do what was required to the house, and that he refused to continue working because he had not received his wages, He charged 3s a day for bis, boy while he was employed, he himself being absent for two daya at McArthur's doing some work, but defendant said it did not natter. Alfred Murphy, the boy referred to, gave corroborative evidence. The defendant was then examined as to his agreement with the plaintiff. The understanding was that he was to go right through with the work, and that his money was ready when ho was finished, instead of which he absented himself fpr two days after starting, and left without completing the work. He had to get other men to complete the work. His Worship' held there was no contract. The day work was done, and the defendant had the benefit of it, so he must give judgment for the amount claimed and costs, 17s,

POLICE COURT.-Thubsdat. [Before Messrs. F. L. Prime and D. G. MacDonnell, J.P.'s.] DbunlceNkiss.—Two men for first offences were mulcted in the usual peoaly for this offence. One woman was also fined 5s and costs, or 24 hours in default; and another, for a second offence, was fined, 10a and costs or 48 hours. Assault.—James Smith, alias "Cockney," arrested on warrant, was charged with violently assaulting George P. Downes on board the gohooter Annie Eliza, on March 3. .The accused pleaded nOt guilty, but said ho had do- it in self-defence. Sergeant Pratt applied for » remand to Monday, 9th inat., as the complainant, who was master of the vessel, ras undergoing treatment at the Hospital, and unable to Appear. There was also a second charge of being found without excuse on the vessel. Remanded to Monday. ' Farrah, oh remand from Wednesday, surrendered to his bail on the charge of stealing 9s, the property of Hugh Mcllhone, at Auokland, on Wednesday. Mr. C. E. Madden appeared for the accused who had pleaded not guilty. , Sergeant Pratt explained the facts of the case. Zilh h Guilding, who partly served in the bar, deposed

that the accused and another man were served with drinks, which were not paid for. She went off to ascertain the c»uee of the fifebells ringing at the time. The men were ia the sitting room. She had left ten or eleven shillings in the till. She returned in about ten minutes. The accused and his com* panion were up at Mr. Beering'e cordial factory at the back of the hotel. There were only 2a in the till, and she reported the matter to Mrs. Mcllhone. She heard accuied say to Constable Bullen, " that he, had Wken, it in fun." Cross-examine'" by Mr. : The accused had often been at the. hpt«l before, and been supplied with drinks. To the Bench: She had trusted him before. Constable Bulleu (on sick leave) deposed that he was passing, and was informed of the alleged larceny. Upon questioning the accused, he produced a half-crown and two single shillings which he said he had taken out by way of a joke from the till," Croaaexamined : The accused was in the cordial factory when he arrived. He said, " I have taken it out of a lark ; here is the money I took" (producing the half - crown, and two shillings.) He also pulled oat other money, and offered to make up the difference. Constable Lamb deposed to arresting the accused on the charge. Two half-crowns and four single shillings were lying on the window. From the statements made By those in the room he took the aocused in charge. Mrs. Mcllhone whjen called on did sot appear, and Sergeant Pratt said he would leave the case in the hands of the Bench. Mr. Madden then addressed the Court at con* siderable length for the defence, contending that there was no felonious intent in the act. Hugh Mcllhone, hotelkeeper, deposed ap to accused's character. Be had been a partner in the brewing firm of Henderson and Farrah, at Wanganui; was an able accountant, and up to recently'had hef»n employed as a clerk in the City Council office*. He would have had no hesitation in lending him the money. Thomas Henry Miller, analytical chemist, deposed that he was aooused'e companion at the time. They had two small beers, which accused paid for. The nrebells rang, and when leaving the bar Farrah said "1 am going.to have a lark." Upon returning from the cordial factory Mrs. Mcllhone said 9a was missing from tbe till. Accqsed immediately said "I have the money, and took it for a lark." The witness was crossexamined at considerable length by Sergeant Pratt as to the money produced in payment for the liquor. The accused made a statement in defence. The Bench held that the accused had admitted the offence on hit own statement in the evidence, He had done 4 very foolish thing in carrying out his lark. A tine of 20s and costs was inflicted or ? daya* imprisonment with hard labour in deiault.