LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7569, 23 February 1886, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

DISTRICT COURT.-— DAT. [Before H. ft. Both Smith, Biq., District Judge.] F. Mijbpht v. J. E. Allen.—Claim, £35, board and lodging. Mr. Napier appeared for plaintiff. A judgment was obtained against defendant on 26th October last, and defendant had since paid - £25 of the original claim. His Honor ordered defendant to pay £10 a month and costs, £2 6s. A. Bockland v. A. Wills.—Claim, £48 lis lOd, for sheep, &c. Mr. Browning appeared for plaintiff. Mr. Shirley proved the olaim. Judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs, £4 lis. S. McCoskrie v. E. Taylor and Others.—Claim, £100, for goods, &c. Mr. Theo. Cooper appeared for plaintiff. Plaintiff deposed that the claim was for material, Work done, and machinery supplied. Judgment was given for plaintiff, with costs, £7 2s. J. P. Maxwell t. Mount Eden Sawmill Co.—Mr. Theo. Cooper appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. 1 J. B. Campbell was present and watched the proceedings for the defendants, but did not appear on their behalf. Mr. Cooper said the claim was for £75 7s 7d railway freight for timber. Henry Smith, Amos Eyes, J. B. Stoney, and William Mills* Were examined. The dispute was as to measurement of the timber. The name of the defendant company was, on the application of Mr. Cooper, changed from the Mount Eden Timber Co. to the Mount Eden Sawmill Co. Judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed, withcost, £5 9s. • < B. C. Anderson v. Burleigh and Another.Claim, £100 for cattle. This case and two-others, viz,, A. Anderson v. Burleigh and another; and E. N. Anderson v. Burleigh and another, were referred to Mr. Clendon, R.M., for arbitration. The awards were read. Certain cattle were ordered to be returned to plaintiffs, and certain damages in each case were ordered to be paid to defendant. The final making of the awards was adjourned till next Courtday. vVallis v. Whitley.—Mr.- E. Hesketh for plaintifi, Mr, Theo. Cooper for defendant, His Honor gave judgment on the question of costs (this being the case in which a new trial was granted a few days ago). His Honor said he did not think the cases in the Courts at home were a proper guide, because the legislation pointed rather differently. A discretion was given under the rules of the District Court which he thought ought to be exercised, and a hard and fast rule should not be laid down, as appeared to have been done. What seemed to him to be a fair to do in this case was to direct that qach party should pay their own costs in the first trial, plaintifi to pay costs of second trial. Judgment given accordingly. t Roberts v. Oliphant. —This was an action whioh was tried on 24th November last, when the jury gave a verdiot for plaintiff for £'20 2s, leave being given, in consequence of an objection raised at the trial, to reduce the verdict to £8, on the ground that there was no contract. Mr. E. Hesketh now applied for the reduction, and Mf. Cooper appeared in support of the original judgment. His Honor reserved judgment. Hancock and Another v. S. J agger.— Claim, £69 6s Bd, rent. Mr. E. Hesketh appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Theo. Cooper for defendant. This case, which was in connection with the lease of the Wellington Hotel, was partly heard at the last sitting of the Court. After hearing further evidence and the arguments of counsel Bis Honor reserved judgment.

POLICE COURT.—Monday. [Before Messrs. C. D. Whitcombe, and R. Stevenson, J.P.'a.l Drunkenness.—Two men were fined in the usual amount for this offence. Disorderly Conduct. — Albert Wright (kuown as " The Rooster") and Patrick Connolly (seaman) pleaded guilty to a charge of being drunk and disorderly in Wellesley-street East on Saturday night. Sergeant Kiely, Constable White, and William Berry, jan., gave evidence as to the free fight that occurred in the middle of the street. Each was fined 20s and costs, or seven days' bard labour in default. Prisons Regulations.—Albert Wright (alias " The Rooster") was then brought up on remand from February 16 on a charge of attempting to communicate with the prisoners in Mount Eden Gaol on February 14. On the application of Mr. Iteston, chief gaoler, a second charge against the accused was amended to "attempting to convey tobacco, &c., to the prisoners." George Crook, assistant warder and clerk, deposed that he was instructed to go to the prison stables about a quarter-past eight p.m. on Sunday, the 14th instant, when his attention was attracted by seeing two men receding in the darkness from the direction of the stables. They went up the hill at the back of the prison, as he soon afterwards heard a whistle in that direotion. It seemed like a signal. Witness then gave information of the occurrence, and, in company with Warder Rjan, he procured a " bull's-ey&'' and searched stables where he found the parcel produced containing three plugs of tobacco, partly filled box of matches, an Evening Star of the previous day, and a letter addressed to " Charlie," one of the prisoners. [The letter was produced and read. It was a rambling letter, about only being able to get half a pound of tobacco and a box of matches, and was signed "The Rooster" in two places.] The witness produced a gratuity receiptbook, in which was the accused's signature for £1 48 4d, and identified it as being similar writing to that in the letter. He remembered Mr. Beston cautioning the accused not to be about the prison after he was discharged. John Ryan, assistant warden, was examined, G. L. Reston, chief gaoler, identified the writing in the letter as being that of the accused. He warned the accused not to be seen about the prison, or if a case were brought against him, he would press for the heaviest penalty the Bench could impose. In defence the accused called a man named Sutherland, who had | admitted a similar charge when Wright was 1 remanded. This witness' evidence only strengthened the prosecution, as he admitted being in company of. Wright, and said he (witness) placed the parcel there. In his statement the accused said the letter got accidentally folded up in the parcel that he gave to Sutherland. Sentenced to six weeks' hard labour, to run consecutively with the sentence in the previous case.

Dispute Over Cards.—Benjamin Williams, waterman, Albert-street, was charged with using v insulting language to Francis McAnally, on February 12. Mr. W. J. Napier appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. For the prosecution Francis McAnally (runner for a boardinghouse), Michael Higgins, and John Angelo, gave evidence. It seemed the complainant and Angelo were playing a game of cribbage in the Tatter's restaurant, in Queen-street, vi hen a dispute arose over the eoore, and the defendant, who was looking on, was appealed to, and backed his opinion against the com* plainant's. Words ensued, and. another independent person was asked to decide the dispute. He returned the stakes to the parties, and then allegations were made against the defendant, who, it was said, used certain language to McAnally. The Bench dismissed the case before the defence was called on, and allowed costs, £4 15s. Assaulting a Francis Avery, clerk at the New Zealand Freezing Co.'a Works, was charged with striking Ellis Robinson on the head, knooking him down, and kneeling on him on February, 11. Mr. W. J. Napier appeared for the defendant, and pleaded not guilty. Mr. S. N. Brassey, in opening the case for the prosecution, explained the conduct of the defendant towards the lad. Ellis Robinson (15) recollected February 11, when he went to the Freezing Works to purohase ice for his mother. ■ He went to buy a 601b block of ice, and paid the defendant 6s Sd for it. Before he paid him de> fendant asked who it was for. Witness replied that it was for his mother. Defendant called him u liar. Witness . reported that defendant was a liar. The defendant rushed at him and struck him on the side of the face. He then managed to knock him down and knelt upon him. When the witness got up the defendant caught him again and attempted to throw him off the platform, but he (witness) caught Avery by the legs and saved himself. Joseph Motion, employed at the works, described the assault, and said the defendant was handlingthe boy rather roughly. He had frequently seen him about the works getting ice, and his conduct was always good., John Rogers, another employ 6 on the works, gave corroborative evidence as to what occurred. He considered the defendant did wrong in the wav he put the boy out. Charles W. Lewis, butcher at the works, was alio examined. In reply to Mr. Napier, tinBench , said there Was no case to warrar t them binding the defendant over, but an assault had been committed. The defendant deDOsed that the boy was cheeky to him i

when he asked about 16> that hia father was indebted for ice. He pushed him oak of the office, and the boy retaliated by striking him on the wrist with a box-lid. The witness need no more than ordinary force to put the boy out of the office, where he had no right to be. James Clark, employed, by the Freezing Company, gave evidence for the defence. . The Bench said they were of opinion that the assault had been clearly proved, and that the defence had misinterpreted a word used by the boy during the struggle. Fined 40s, and costs £4 17s. . Row at Newmarket.-George Evans, labourer, pleaded not guilty to striking £ ho ™ Fenton with his fiat on February 13. Mr. W. J. Napier appeared for the defendant. Ihe complainant conducted his own case, and called two fellow-labourers named Hamilton and Barry, who stated that the assault arose over a dispute about the filling of a truck, which the defendant claimed as his. It seemed the men were employed on the levelling works about the Newmarket station in gangs, and trucks were allotted to each gang. The defence was a denial of the assault. In cross-examination the defendant admitted offering an apology to Fenton. who would not acoept it, and elected to take the matter into Court. The Bench said th« defective arrangements that were in existence had been remedied by the Government, by providing more trucks. As there were faults on both sides they would dismiss the case* each party to pay their own costs. '