LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7648, 27 May 1886, Page 3

LAW AND POLIC E.

SUPREME COURT.—In Bancctv Wednesday, Mat 26. [Beforo His Honor Mr. Justice Gillles.l Law Practitioners Act. — Mr. George moved that Mr. George William Baaley be admitted a eolicitor and barrister of the Supremo Court of New Zealand. Hβ put in the affidavits getting forth the facts certifying that he had been appointed DeputyRegistrar, and had continued to hold that office up to the present time. Mr, Basley then took the necessary oaths, and wae duly admitted. His Honor, in admitting Mr. Basley, said : Having served the requisite period as Deputy-Kegistrar.and having passed the examination, I have mueh pleasure in admitting you ae solicitor of this Court. From the care and assiduity and courtesy with whioh you have performed the duties of your office, I have no doubt you will continue to practice the same condpet as solicitor, and I have now great pleasure in admitting you. Public Trust Office Act, 1873.—Mγ. James Russell moved for an order under the Public Trust Office Act, 1873, section 25, for an order to pay to the heira of Henry Ennis (deceased) money whioh had accumulated in the bands of the Public Trustee, The deceaeed was a soldier, and died in ISGG. Ho possessed considerable property, which was taken possession of by the Public Truetee, wlio had continued to draw tho revenue, and pay it into the Public Trust Office. They now claimed this accumulated money on behalf of Margaret Thompson, the sister of the deceased and the only relative living. Mr. Uussoll put in the necessary affidavits to support the application. Tho Court made an order that the money be paid over to» Margaret Thompson, heiress-at-law. Riddifokd v. Davidson. —This wae a motion to rescind an order, made by the Registrar at New Plymouth, to join certain natives as defendants. Mr. Hutchinson, of Wanganui, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Theo. Cooper for the defendant. The motion was by way of appeal against the order made by the Registrar, on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant the issue of the order, and that the order ought not to have been made, and was an improper order. The action, which arose in Taranaki, wae an action for possession of land, being a portion of the confiscated territory, for which grants were issued to the natives subsequent to the issue of a lease to the plaintiff by the native owners, but the defendant acquired eome right by purchase from certain natives, and took possession of the land for the first six months, with the consent of the plaintiff, but aa he continued to occupy it without the consent of plaintiff (whose lease had been confirmed), _ these proceedings became necessary, and in the ordinary course would havo been heard before His Honor at tho Taranaki sittings of the Court. Mr. Hutchinson quoted authorities in support of his contention that these natives should not be joined as defendants. His Honor said he would like to hear the other side, for at present he could see no grounds why theeo persons should be joined in the action. Mr. Cooper said that the Registrar had no doubt satisfim! himself, but His rJonor had of course the right to review the registrar's ruling. The defendant's case was that he was in possession by the leave and license of certain natives, who claimed to be owners of the land, and who wore willing to bo joined as defendants. Tho contention was that the lease to the plaintiff was a bad lease, on the ground that the Governor's confirmation of the lease was obtained by fraud, and it would be only fair that the parties attacking the validity of the lease should bo before th« Court. Hie Honor said that the parties attacking the lease must endeavonr to set aside the Governor's confirmation, which could not be done by this Court. It rested with the plaintiff to prove the validity of the leaae, or the defendant to show a superior title. Mr. Coopor said he would consent to the parties being discharged, provided 14 days were allowed to filo a defence. Mr. flutchineon objected, but His Honor held th»t in cases of this kind time to plead was allowed as a matter of course, and Mr. Hutchineon could not bo prejudiced, as the ca3e could not be heard until the next sittings of the Court in New Plymouth. He granted 28 days in which to file a defence. The order was set aside, with £10 10s costs of the application. Snodgkass v. Nkw Zealand Insurance Company. —Mr. Alexander moved for an order removing the action from the Resident Magistrate's Court to the Supreme Court. Mr. Alexander appeared for the company. By consent this case was withdrawn, and the csse New Zealand Insurance Company v. Snodgrass was ordered to Bland over. Buller and Anotiikr v. Hardisg.—Mr. Palmer moved to alter the judgment; herein, pursuant to leave reserved. The action had been heard at the reccut civil sittings of the Court, when judgment was given for the plaintiffs. Thu plaintiffs are a firm of solicitors in Wellington, and the defendant, Mrs. Harding, the licensee of the Occidental Hotel, Auckland, and formerly of Wellington. Mr. Alexander appeared for the plaintiife. A judgment bad been given in Wellington against the plaintiff* for £500, and they got leave to bring a croefl action, which was heard at the last civil sittings of the Court, and judgment was given for the plaintiffs for £4. What was now asked was that judgment should be given for the difference between the amount of the last judgment and the £500 and interest accrued for which judgment had been given against the plaintiffs in this action. His Honor said that the two judgments were separate action*, and judgment had been given. Mrs. Harding got her judgment with costs, and now the other side had a judgment with costs. It was not a case of claim and counter-claim, bat of separate action, which was brought by consent, and they could not by one actioD balance off the other action, but they could set off one judgment against the othor. The question of costs was, owing to the illness of Mr. Forwood, allowed by consent to stand over till next Banco sitting of the Court.

.DISTRICT COURT.— Wednesday. [Before Mr. H. 0. Sfth Smith, R.M.] A. Hillv. F. Philpotts. — Mr. Browning for the plaintiff, and Mr. Dcvore for the defendant. The claim was for £57 5s Gel, for rent. Plaintiff, a farmer at Manurewa, said on tho 7th March, 1881, he owned lots at Papakura containing 100 acres, and made a written agreement with tho defendant to lot them to him, which both signed. Defendant took the agreement, and plaintiff kept a copy for himself, which he produced. Under that agreement defendant paid rent for two years on current account, doing work as a labourer together with his brother, and defendant was credited for the amount he earned in that account. In consequence of defendant not paying rent, plaintiff took possession of the lend in 18S3, having delayed doing so sooner because defendant said Mr. Greenweod had an interest in it and would pay all. He claimed four quarters' rent according to agreement. Before taking possession he had received from Mr. Greenwood a refusal to pay any rent, and referring him to the defendant. He never accepted Mr. Greenwood in place of the defendant. Hβ sold the place shortly after taking possession. He told defendant that there was a balance duo from him, and asked him what he intended doing, and Philpotta had several times promised to pay the balance. Dofen dant said he entered upon the farm in ISSO, and remained there until January, 1883. Then he told plaintiff that he wished to get rid of the place, and plaintiff then said why not sell it to Mr. Greenwood. He asked what about the £50, and on reckoning up accounts they found that he (defendant) had done work to the amount of about £30, and plaintiff agreed to have a month's work from his brother-in-law, and "cry quits." That work was done and defendant sold hie interest in the agreement for £100 more than theamount ifc was arranged he might purchase for, to Mr. Greenwood, who paid £10 deposit. Since 1883 defendant had exercised no act of ownership over the farm, and did not expect to have to pay any rent after that. He never got anything more from Mr. Greenwood. Edward Holmes and J. Jones gave further evidence in support of defendant's case. Counsel on either side having addressed the Court, His Honor adjourned judgment. JT. Read v. A. Voixbracht.— Claim, £32 108 for wages. Mr. Laishley for the plaintiff, and Mr. Gover for the defendant. For the defence it was denied that there had been any engagement, or that plaintiff had done any work as alleged. Mr. Laishley stated that plaintiff was employed by the defendant at the latter end of December, 1885, at £2 10s per week, and worked for him at his office in Auckland until the 2nd of April* He left defendant's employ

becaaee he could not get his wages, though | he frequently applied for them, defendant J putting him off on the plea of irnpecunioaity. Plaintiff supported the statement, giving the oircumitances under which he was engaged. Defendant met him in Vulcan-lane, and, after a short conversation, said he was about to start a tobacco company, and offered plaintiff £210 a a week to commence on the first day of the year. Plaintiff went to defendant's offioe on that day, and commenced work on the day following. Defendant described to him the various processes of packing, cutting, and drying tobacco, and said he must learn as much as he could there, as he intended afterwards to send him to Napier. He went to work as arranged, and continued for seven weeks, but could get no wages, though he frequently applied, defendant putting payment off, and saying he had no money. Defendant arranged to go with him to Napier, but did not meet plaintiff at the steamer as he promised. The latter had to return from the wharf with hie luggage. Defendant made excuses, and said they would go in the following week. They did not go, but plaintiff continued working. At the end of the eleventh week he told defendant that he should leave his service, and defendant said if he would stop another week he would make it worth his while. Plaintiff continued working for thirteen weeks without any fault being found with him, but could get no money, and he then left. In reply to Mr. Cover, plaintiff said his time at defendant's office wae spent in learning the packing and curing of tobacco, and going on messages. It was to fit him for the plaoe he was promised at Napier. Defendant denied that there had been any engagement as described by the plaintiff, or that plaintiff had done work for him. He had had transactions with the plaintiff, who, being afterwards out of work, asked him for a situation. Defendant eaid if he got his tobacoo company floated he would get plaintiff a situation ae etoreman or porter, and he told him if he was out of work he might call now and then and inquire. Plaintiff called several times to ask about the situation, but he never asked for wages. Witness nevex arranged to go to Napier with the plaintiff, whose statements were altogether false. A. KempUy, clerk to defendant, said he attended the office in Custom-street regularly. No one else was employed there but the office lad. Plaintiff had called to see defondant, but was never employed there. He otherwise confirmed defendant's statement. Mr. Laiehley then applied for an adjournment, in order to bring rebutting evidence, that given for the defendant being quite uuexpeotedby them. They were ready to pay the costs of that day. Mr. Gover not mafei ng any strong objection, the further hearing of the case was adjourned until next Court-day. POLICE COURT.— Wednesday. [Before Messrs. 0. D. Whitcombe and W. Duncan, J.P.'s.) Dronkknness. —A woman for a. first offence was discharged with a oaution, and a man was similarly dealt with. Mary Ann Biddick, 'or a second offence, was fined 10a and costs, or 48 hours in default. Letitia Hughes, for a third offence, was fined £5 and costs, or 14 days in default. Adjourned.—Fredk. Frouien, adjourned from Monday, appeared on the charge of stealing a wa.shstand, jug, and basin, valued at 6s 6d, the property of Thomas Mitchell. Sergeant Pratt, on behalf of Mr. R. Laishley, who was instructed for the prosecution, applied for a remand to Friday. Adjournment granted. The aocused pleaded that he had already been remanded on the charge. Sergeant Pratt said the accused had been on bail, and he would not object to it being enlarged. The Bench ordered the application to be granted. larceny, of Clothiso.—Edward Hunter (a young man on remand from Monday) pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing two overcoats valued at £4 10s, the property of William Edgar, Cox'e Creek, on April 28. It seemed the acoused had entered the premises of Mr. Edgar, dyer, and removed three coats after he had been given shelter for the night. Two of the articles had been traced to second-hand clothiers in the city, but the third had not been discovered. Sentenced to a month's imprisonment with hard labour. Obtaining Monbt U.ndbr False Pretences. — George White, alias Goorge Wihte Walkinshaw, and Arthur Haywood )two well - dressed young men), were charged with knowingly and wilfully obtaining £5 by means of false pretence, from Florence Widdowe, on May 24. This being an indictable case, which the Bench could deal with summarily, their Worships decided to do so. Florence Wuldows deposed that she kept a boardinghouse in Grey-street. Her husband was in the Asylum. The accused were boarders, and would have owed her for a week on Tuesday last. On Monday a cheque for £5 10s on the National Bank of New Zealand was presented for change. She had only a £5 note, and gave it to them on the understanding that 30s whs to be returned. They went out, and did not return. To Haywood : It was White who gave her the cheque. John Croom Webster, assistant ledger-keeper, National Bank of New Zealand, identified the cheque produced as having been presented and returned marked " refer to drawer." The sheque was drawn by " A. Heywood," and made payable to " Geo. Whyte." There was no account at the bank in that name, and there were no funds. Detective Herbert deposed to arresting the accused (White) on Tuesday afternoon. He said he had got the cheque from Haywood. Witness had known White for some time under the name of Walkinshaw, having had occasion to watch his movements, «nd had seen him in Haywood's company, and he had imposed on nearly all the boardinghouses in Auckland. Be had warned a widow in Beresford-street, whom Haywood had duped Detective Walker arrested Haywood. The cheque (produced) was signed " A. Heywood." There wae another cheque in the possession of the police, but as it was only received the previous night, time had not elapsed to get up the evidence. The Bench dismissed the case against Haywood, as not having been sustained, leaving it to the prosecution to take fresh proceedings if necessary. In sentencing White the Court eaid, as it was his first appearance, he would be leniently dealt with, and imposed a sentence of three months' hard labour. Disobeying Lawful Commands.—Albert Smith, fireman, was charged with disobeying lawful commands on board the British steamship Kaikoura on April 16. Mr. J. O'Meagher appeared for the accused, and applied for a remand, to enable the accused to prepare his defence. Captain Crutchley, who was in Court, asked that the case might proceed, as it was an ordinary shipping case. The Bench ordered the accused to be put back for an hour. On resuming, Thomas East, chief officer of the Kaikoura, produced the ship's articles, on which he was entered as a greaser. Witness quoted from the official log, when a charge of insubordination was heard, and a fine of 5s and costs was imposed on April 16. It was heard in the pretence of the witness. On the same date an entry was made of a charge of assault upon the fourth engineer on the same day, when it was decided to hold the accused under arrest pending arrival in New Zealand, and an entry was made to that effect. The voasel was then iu lat. 21- north and long. 27' wast (near Cape de Verde Islands). The entry of insubordination was cancelled as being too serious. Captain Crutchley, who was in Court, rose to explain that ho had power to cancel the entry. Mr O'Meagher objected on the ground that the prosecution was being conducted by Sergeant Pratt. Examination resumed : The fourth engineer had full power to order the acoused to duty. The statement of the accused was not entered in the log. Cross-examined : The statement was not read over to the accused, as it was cancelled, the captain considering the charge of assault to be too serious to bo dealt with. Smith was ordered to oil the guide* of the bearings, which he had not d"ne. Witness was not present when the assault was made, but a complaint had been made of the assault. He heard Niccol give his evidence before the accused. The steamer was a mail steamer, and it was of great importance that the bearings should be attended to, Mr. O'Meagher, at this stage, contended that the case must fail, as the Act required that the statement of the accursed should be recorded in the log. William P. Crutchley, commander of the Kaikoura, deposed on referring to the log that it was reported to him that on April 16 that the fourth engineer had been assaulted by one of the greasers. He called the accused for an explanation in the presence of the engineer. The accused was charged with insubordination in the presence of the engineer, and a fine of 5s was imposed. Finding that the charge of assault was of a serious character,'he ordered it to bo cancelled, r»nd the accused to be confined till arrival ir. New Zealand. It was of the greatest importance that the bearings should

be attended to promptly, as the vessel va« then steaming about 15 miles an hour, and the want of oil would have been sufficient to cause a breakdown of the engines. To the Benoh: The statement made by the accused was not entered in the log. He was told that he would be held till arrival in New Zeeland. The Bench held that under section 148 of the Act the entry of the detention of the accused and hia statement should have been recorded in the log} therefore the first charge wae dismissed. Second Charge.—The accused was then charged with assaulting Archibald Niccol, by striking him on the head with a tar brush, when on the high seae. Sergeant Pratt conducted the prosecution, and Mr. O'Meagher appeared for the accused. Thomas East, chief officer, produced the log-book, recording the cancelled entry, The fourth engineer deposed that he found the guides of the bearings required oiling, and seeing that Smith had not obeyed his order, which required being done promptly, he went to the chief engineer, and on returning he went to do the work, when Smith struck at him with the oilcan, which he (witness) snatched from him, and Smith then followed up by striking him with his fist. Witness then went on deok, and by that time a number of trimmers, &c, had collected at the entrance to the engine-room, and said, " Take him out of the engine-room." Smith got him into a corner, and he then wae compelled to strike him to get away. During the scuflfb Smith struck him on the back of the head with the tar brush (produced) from which, if he had been nearer to him, witness would have got a heavier blow than he did. The witness was cross examined a" - considerable length, but hie evidence in the main was not shaken. Hβ said he had been concerned in a row on a previous voyage lof the steamur. Edward Parfitt, surgeon of the steamer, deposed that Niccol sustained a bruised cut on the head, which was about an inch and a half long. It vas at the time a serious wound. He had him under his care for ten days. A trimmer named Sinclair was called. Hβ said there were high words between Niccol and Smith in the engineroom. Witness separated them, and on getting clear they went together again. Ho parted them again, and when his baok was turned Smith struck Niocol on the head with the tar brush. James Black, chief engineer, deposed to being present when the fourth officer made a complaint to the captain. Smith was there also, and said he had been sworn at by Niccol, and may have said other things, but the witness did not remember. Niccol snatched the oilcan from him. For the defence, Mr. O'Meagher contended that provocation had been given to Smith to commit the assault by the manner in which the order was given by Niccol, bat at the same time he held that under the circumstances the Bench should take a lenient view of the offence, seeing that the man had been in confinement from April 16 to the vessel's arrival. Thomas Houston and John Percy, trimmers, were examined. The Bench held that the case had been fully proved, and they fnought it right to state that there had been no cause shown that the fourth engineer had not done his duty in ordering the accused to perform bis. The aocused had rendered himself liable to six months' hard labour, but a sentence of one month would be imposed.