LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 7917, 8 April 1887, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Civil Sittings, Thursday. [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Ward.l Blandon v. Corporation of Auckland. This was an action brought by William Blandon against the Mayor, Council, and citizens of Auckland to recover the amount of £250, amount of an award of the Compensation Court. Mir. H. Campbell, instructed by Mr. Cave, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. T. Cotter for the City Council. The statement of claim was to the following effect That, in 1885, the defendants executed certain work, filling up a natural watercourse adjacent to the plaintiff's land, by which it was injuriously affected, and he claimed compensation. Joseph Newman was appointed assessor for the plaintiff, and Henry G. Wade for the defendants ; and a Compensation Court, consisting of Mr, Justice Gillies and two assessors, brought in an award of £250, to be paid to the plaintiff, to be reduced to Is if within seven months they filled up plaintiff's allotments to the level of the embankment made by the defendants on the Education Board ground, and to pay £25 costs of the inquiry, Since making the award, defendants executed certain filling up on plaintiff's property, but did not within seven months, or since, fill up the said allotment to the satisfaction of the assessor. For the purpose of retaining the earth in position for the plainttff, defendants had erected a wooden breastwork, which being of a perishable nature and insufficient for the purpose, the plaintiff therefore prayed that judgment may be given for the said sum of £250. The defence was that the Corporation bad acted within their power, and as a further defence alleged that they had complied with the award by tendering payment of Is, and they had filled up the allotment to th« satisfaction of the assessors, and that the wooden breastwork was sufficient, and that their acts had assisted in the said filling by raising plaintiff's buildings, and that the loss of rent referred to was not caused by their acts. It appeared that one of the assessors, Mr. Wade, had expressed himself satisfied with the work done, but the other, Mr. Newman, while satisfied with the filling itself, was dissatisfied with the wooden breastwork. His Honor did not think the Court had any jurisdiction to deal with the matter, or hear any such claim for compensation, unless the award was filed in the usual way. Mr. Campbell -contended that the only course open to them was to bring an action on the award, and the Court had jurisdiction to hear the action, and further contended that defendants having paid money into Court, was not entitled to file a defence. His Honor said this was a very different matter to ordinary payment into Court. It was payment of an award. Mr. Campbell contended that the first defence must be struck out. His Honor, on looking through the two statements of defence, said they were certainly incompatible, Mr. Cotter said he was quite willing, and had offered to his friend, that His Honor should act instead of Mr. Justice Gillies, and on the evidence of the two assessors alone say whether or not the condition of the award had not been carried out. His Honor said he would visit the place with the assessors, and at once enter up judgment. Mr. Cotter said h9 was quite willing to have this course adopted. Mr. Campbell said one of the assessors was a professional and the other was not, and he considered His Honor was entitled to professional evidence as to whether Mr. Newman's reasons for objecting to the work were valid. Mr. Cotter said if, after His Honor and the assessors had visited the ground, His Honor thought professional evidence necessary, then they could be prepared to produce it. His Honor said that he considered professional evidence ought to be called to say whether the filling had been properly done, after they had viewed the premises. This course was adopted, and the Court then adjourned.

R.M. COURT. —Thursday. [Before Mr. H. G. Beth Smith, R.M.] Judgments for Plaintiffs.Payne v. Duthie, claim £8 13s 6d, costs 10s ; North New Zealand Woollen Company v. Franklin, claim £12 7s 3d for calls on 20 shares, costs £2 7s; same v. Kelsall, claim £1 for calls, costs £1 Is 6d; Porter and Co. v. Kemp, claim £29 13s sd, costs £4 193 ; Frozen Meat Co. v. Jordan, claim, £5 3s lid, costs £1 17s ; Franklyn v. Beuth and another, claim £3, and costs, £1 la 6d; Lewis Moses v. Cole, claim £5 on a promissory note and 5a interest, costs £2 5s ; Shortland v. O'Leary, claim £20 53 for rent, costs £4 18s; Walker and another v. Grogan, claim £1 15s, cost 3 21s 6d ; Buckland v. Bollis, claim 10s for detention of a pig, allowed ss, and costs 21s 6d ; Auckland Dairy Co. v. Brown, claim 14s 4d, costs lis ; Buckland v. Phillips, claim £13 lis 6d, costs £2 7a ; Swinnerton v. Chambers, claim £24 for interest, on a loan of £360, costs £4 18s; Sperry v. Gee, claim £2 2s 7d, costs lis ; Waters v. Codling, claim £1 17« 4d, for goods supplied, costs lis; Bates v. Martin, claim £9 18s 9d, costs £1 16a ; Sharland and Co. v. Manson, claim £31 19s for goods suplied, and £30 12s 8d on a promissory note, costs £5 8s; New Zealand Timber Co. v. French, claim £5 18s 6d, for goods supplied, costs £1 12s ; A. H. Nathan and Co. v. Doyle, claim £49 Is lOd, costs £4 ISs.

Davidson v. Morton.—Claim. £3, for a saddle which defendant sold for plaintiff. Defendant had also sold plaintiff's horse for £12, and got £1 commission. Defendant denied that he owed plaintiff more than £2 10a for the saddle, as he claimed 10s for commission. Judgment for plaintiff for £3 costs, lis. John O'Donohue v. Eden Terrace Road Board.—Claim, £24 16s sd. Mr. O'Meagher for plaintiff, and Mr. Campbell for .defendants. This was a claim for certain work done to Haslet-street, a road in Eden jjCerrace, and for certain extras. The contractor completed the contract, but a dispute arose about the payment. Adam Porter, chairman of the Eden Terrace .Road Board, deposed that plaintiff had got the contract for certain work in Haslet-street ( The Road Board had had work done on the toad since the contractor had finished, as there had been a lot of slips which they had had to clear away. McCarthy, the engineer, had refused to pass the work. The contract was put in evidence, but it was unstamped. Mr. O'Meagher wanted Mr. Porter to have the contract stamped, but he declined to do so, and told Mr. O'Meagher he could stamp it himself if he liked. The contractor, however, refused to pay for the stamping. Mr. O'Meagher said that it was a disgraceful way for public bodies to conduot business. He accused Mr. Porter of knowing that the engineer had tried to blackmail the contractor. Mr. Porter denied this, and said he had never heard of it until Mr. O'Meagher had mentioned it. The case was nonsuited without costs. '

Leydon v. Sheriff. was an interpleader summons. Mr. C. E. Button appeared for the claimant, and in support of the summons; Mr. Theo. Cooper for the execution creditor. Mr. Cooper took the preliminary objection that the notice served on the bailiff did not contain the grounds of the claim, and cited authorities to show that in such a case, the notice being a condition precedent, the evidence could not be gone into, and the summons must be dismissed. Mr. Button strongly animadverted on the delay shown by the bailiff in the matter, and also argued that the notice was sufficient. Mr. Burke, the bailiff, stated that he had called the attention of the clerk serving the notice to the defect in it, when he stated they would "fight it out." His Worship held that the particulars were insufficient, and dismissed the summon?, with costs, £1 Is. Murray v. Bedding.—Claim £12 3s 7d. Mr. Franklin appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Theo. Cooper for the defendant. This was a claim for commission on goods supplied. Mr. Murray, the plaintiff, deposed to _ receiving an order for Spanish lace, knitting machines, and other goods from the defendant, and sending to England for them. When the goods arrived he sent in the account and commission to Spedding, but the latter disputed about the commission, and refused to pay it. To Mr. Cooper: The laces were not supplied on approbation-, nor were any of the other goods, except some patent medicine. Mr. Cooper said he would produce Mr. Murray's own writing to show that the goods were sent subject to Spedding's approval. He produced an invoice for the goods, which clearly showed that they were on approbation. Witness said that was not the proper invoice; he had sent a second invoice giving 12J per cent, discount if defendant would take the goods. . Witness was cross-examined at considerable length on the accounts, discounts, commissions, etc., which j he claimed or allowed. Alexander Kempley, Murray's traveller, was also examined. This

was the plaintiff's case. W. Spedding w& examined for the defence, and said there ha*, been no arrangement about commission, a. he understood Murray was to get bis commission from the manufacturer. Judgment was given for defendant with costs, £1 6s. Hodgson v. Courtney. — Claim, £21 9a 3d, for shingle, lime, and sand supplied to Jenkinson, the contractor for Mr. Firth's mill. Mr. Theo. Cooper appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Nioholson for the defendant. Jenkinson, Hodgson, and others were examined. _ Courtney had taken the oontract when Jenkinson failed. The case was nonsuited with costs, £3 6s. Mr. Cooper gave notice of application for a summons under the Workmen's Debts Act.

POLICE COURT.—Thursday. [Before Mr. J. P. King, J.P.] ■ Drunkenness. Hughes was fired 10a and costs ; Robert Leary, 10s and costs ; Montague Marriott, 5a and costs, and also 9s maintenance money. House of 111-fame. —Mary Ann Brown was charged with a breach of the Polica Offences Act, by occupying a house in Napier - street which was frequented by reputed thieves and vagrants, on April 7. Sergeant Pratt stated that the evidence would prove that the house was a. most disorderly brothel, and a nuisance to the neighbourhood. Complaints had been made by the residents of the street. W. Carter, and several members of the police, gave evidence. Sentenced to three months' hard labour. Mary Ana Dixon, Catherine Cummins, and Beury Power, for being found in the house, also received sentences of three months each. Depositing Nightsoil.—John Knapman, nightman, was charged with a breach of the city by-laws, by depositing nightsoil on premises occupied by Mary Reardon, in Graham-street, on March 24. Mr. Geo. Goldie represented the Corporation. Samuel Green and John Martin were also summoned on the same charge. Mr. Theo. Cooper appeared for the defence, and asked for an adjournment till Tuesday, 19th inst. The Bench granted the adjournment. Insulting Language. — Cecil William Goodison was charged upon summons with using insulting language towards James Edmunds, on April 4. On behalf of accused, Mr. Franklin pleaded not guilty. Jamea Edmunds, contractor, Garrett's Buildings, the complainant, and Goodison, the defendant, were, it seemed, in Karangahape Road on Monday. Edmunds was talking to one of his workmen at the time about the recent fire in Beresford-straet, when Goodison came along, and asked Edmunds to go with him to Brodie'a Hotel, where a man wished to see him on buaimss. When there, Goodison caught him and dragged him into a room, saying, "Now, you scoundrel, I have got you; I'll murder you." He then struck him. on tho lip. A number of witnesses wera examined. The Bench ordered the defendant to keep the peace for six months, in two sureties of £25, and pay costs. Railway Case. — John Williams was charged with getting upon a coal waggon on the Auckland and To Awamutu Railway, when a train was in motion, on March 7. Mr. Theo. Cooper prosecuted, and on his ap. plication the case was adjourned to Tuesday, April 19, as the summons was not served,