LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 8082, 24 September 1887, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

R.M. COURT.—Friday. [Before H. O. Seth Smith, Esq., R.M.]

P. Winter y. H. P. Bicxtt.—Claim, £11 4s. Defendant did not appear, and an order was made that he pay the full amount by instalments of 15s per week, costs 19J. J. A. Gibboms ▼. D. Campbell.—Claim, £6 10s. There was no appearance of defendant, and he was ordered to pay the full amount on or before October 12th, or 10 days' imprisonment. L. D. Nathan and Co. ▼. P. Kebnott. — Claim, £2 7s lOd. The debtor was ordered to pay instalments of 15* a month, costs lis. G. Moßridb ▼. P. Kelly.Claim, £6 4s. There was no appearance of debtor, who was ordered to pay within a week, or undergo seven days' imprisonment. H. C. Hanohabd v. L. D. Evans.— Claim, £53 Bs. Mr. Burton appeared for plaintiff, whilst defendant conducted his own oase. The debtor was examined, and Mr. Hanchard deposed that he had lent Dr. Evans £50 to purohase the debts of the latter's bankrupt estate. Defendant had promised that when he had collected sufficient of the money owing to him, ho would repay Mr. Hanohard. This loan was the subject of the present claim. During cross-exami-nation by the debtor a somewhat heated disoussion ensued, and the word " liar " was used by defendant, who alleged that Hanchard had shown him no mercy. The oase was adjourned in order to permit of the appearance of the debtor's agent, who, it was deposed, had stated that Dr. Evans bad oolleoted debts sufficient to pay the claim. Da. Laishlky ▼. Giffobd and Evans.— Claim, £12 16s. The defendants are dairy« men, carrying on business at Onehunga, and it transpired in evidence given by Mr. Gifford, that since the incurring of the debt for which Dr. Laißhley sued, the firm had given a bill of sale, and were now paying off the capital and interest accruing on this bill. Gilford further stated that they had lost £12,000, and were now struggling to maintain themselves. They offered to pay by instalments of 10s a month. Dr. Laishley said he had already refused this offer, whioh he considered a ridiculous one, and he would prefer suing the other partners of the firm, and putting in a bill of execution. His Worship therefore consented to the adjournment of the case for a month.

Official Assignee t. Jackson. — This was a claim for £50, for the value of furniture in the house occupied by Greenhough, a bankrupt, and alleged to have been seized under distraint tor rent by the defendant, who is the landlord of the house. Mr. Cave appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Theo. Cooper for the defendant. Mr. R. A, Hould, accountant in the office of the Official Assignee, deposed to the advertisements of the bankruptcy whioh appeared in the newspapers, and which were entered as proof of the filing. Mr. Greenhough, the bankrupt, deposed that on the 13tn of September, when he filed a * petition in the Insolvency Court, be owed some thirtoen weeks' rent to Mr. Jackson. Defendant was not present when the bailiff took possession, bat when he arrived from the Thames on the morning of the 16th he asked Mr. Jackson to allow the matter to stand over till the following morning when be would endeavour to effeot an arrangement. Mr. Jackson would not agree to this. In j cross-examination defendant stated that he { was a commercial traveller, and had now secured a situation at 30s a week. He was still occupying the house owned by Mr. Jaokson, and had not paid any rent since he had filed his petition in bankrupty. The rent of the house was £1 a week, and he hud a family of six children. Prior to the distraint he bad given a bill of sale over the furniture, and this bad been executed. He had subsequently given to Dr. Laishluy another bill of sale for £35 over the furniture and this had not been put into execution, and was still existing. He had made no offer to leave the bohse, and he had not been asked to do so. For the defence, Mr. Cooper contended (1) that since Dr. Laishley held a bill ef sale over the furniture, the legal estate in the property was vested in that gentleman, and the present proceedings were therefore illegal; (2) that the advertisements in the newspapers entered in evidence were not sufficient proof of the bankruptcy, which had noli therefore been proved to have taken place ; (3) that if the bankruptcy did take place the goods were diatrainable under Section 121 of the Act. The evidence of Messrs P. Oliphant and J. M. Geddis was tsken for the defence, and the arguments of counsel on both sides having been beard, His Worship reserved his decision. [POLICE COURT.—Friday. [Before J. Cordon, Esq., and W. P. Moat, Esq., J.fs.l Dbonkknnkss. —One man was fined 5* and oosts for this offence. Benjamin Smith was fined 20s, or in default seven days; while Riohard Irwin was ordered to pay £5 and oosts, or go to gaol for fourteen days. Window Smashing.Jane McManuswas oharged with using insulting language towards Sarah Home, and with breaking eighteen panes of glass, valued at 20s, the property of Sarah Home. Defendant admitted the offence. Sarah Home deposed that she was locked inside her own house on Monday afternoon, when defendant came and. made use of the language complained of, threatening personal violence, and then broke the windows. She had also abused witness in town and struck her because she refused to withdraw the charge. Aanie Dunn was called as a witness, but knew nothing of the matter. The Benoh ordered accused to pay a fine of 5* and costs, and pay the damage done, on the second charge; and on the first to find securities to keep the peace for six months, herself in £10, and one surety of £10. Breach of Railway Rkgolations.— Charles Smith and Charles Adamson were charged with a breach of the Public Works Aot by being drunk upon the KaiparaPuniu railway at Kuineu. On being called, neither defendant appeared. Mr. Theo. Cooper, who appeared for the Railway De. partment, said that!, both offenders had been served with summonses to answer the charge, and stated that fc,e would ask for a warrant to compel their attendance, as the charge was a serious one. Both men had been lying drunk on the railway line about half a mile from Kumeu, and the train had to be stopped and the men moved from the line. Had those in charge of the engines not observed them in time an aooident attended with loss of life must have resulted. Mr. Cooper found at this stage that the summons against Adamson had not been served, but he applied for a warrant to be issued against Smith. The accused, Charles Smith, who said his proper name was Robert Vans ton, however subsequently put in an appearance, and the Case was proceeded with. He stated that he had thought that he would get home before the train oame, but supposed he had fallen down on the line and fell asleep. He did not remember anything about the matter. Henry MoVeagh, guard on the Kaipara train, stated that he was in the train on the 10th instant when the train stopped. Witness looked out and saw the fireman shifting two men off the line. ■ Witness took the names of the two and reported the affair. Richard J. Estrupp, fireman, corroborated the evidence given by the guard. Both prisoners were drunk, and were lying with their heads upon the sleepers. The accused Smith spoke when he was moved, saying "Am I in the way t" Prisoner stated that he did not know the other man, but believed his name to be Edward Stanton, He was himself guilty,and did not oare whether he was sent to gaol for twelve months or twenty years. The reason thai he got on the line was that he was short-sighted. He thought it a pity if a man could not get drunk, and spend his money as he liked. He was fined £2 and costs, or one mouth's imprisonment. Larceny.—Charles Roberts and Arthur Morton, on remand, were charged with stealing 23 pairs of boots, valued at £8 10s, and one trunk, worth 4*, the property of William Watts. Sergeant Pratt stated the case for the prosecution briefly, and then called William Watts, who stated that . he was a bootdealer, and had a place of business in Queen-street, near the Anchor Hotel. In August last he had a shop in Karangahape Road, but he had closed it on the 22nd uit. He had had the accused Roberts engaged in his Karangahape Road shop, and when he shut it up he sent him to the Queen-street shop for a week, as he bad to give him a week's notice. Mr. Shadgate was the manager. Roberts knew that witness never gave credit. On the 25th August he went in consequence of information he had received from his manager to the shop to see Roberts. He was not there, so witness walked down Qaeen-street and met him. Witness told him that he wanted to know about a pair of boots that were missing from the wall. He Baid he had exchanged them for another pair. Acoused said he would meet witness in four or five minutes and

show him the pair of boots. Witness waited for accused, bat he did not appear, and he had not seen him since. On the 28th August be accompanied Detective Herbert to the Waitemata Hotel, ami they went into a bedroom, where be itaw a trunk of boots. There were 23 pairs of boot«, which be identified as his pro-r'-rty, though he could not swear to j -lie trunk, as there were many like it. He valued the boots and trunk at about £8 14s. The boots had not been sold to his knowledge, or if they had they were not entered in the cash sheet, as was the rule. By the Benoh : Some of the boots had been in the Queen-street shop previous to Roberts going there, and some had been sent down j from the Gobson-street shop. He identified a pair as among those sent down on 22nd August. George Shad gate, manager of Mr. Watts' Queen street establishment in August, stated that the accused (Roberts) oame there on the 22ud August. Be received no specific instructions from witness about the business. All sales were recorded on the sales' sheet. It was witness' oustom to leave the shop between five and six every evening. Roberts was in charge during bis absenoe. On 23rd August he left- Roberts at five o'clock, and on his return at six o'clock he missed two or three pairs of boots from the wall. Witness called prisoner's attention to the fact, and he said he had been showing them to two ladies, but that they had not been sold. Witness referred to the cash sheet, and saw that there was no entry of a sale. Prisoner said they must be somewhere about. On the 24th ho missed a trunk on returning at six o'clock. He asked Roberts had he sold one, and he said he had. He saw no entry for the sale. Roberts said that he had sold it to a friend who would call in and pay for it during the evening. Witness told him it was irregular not to enter it, when he said if his friend did not pay soon to oharge it to hira. Witness uo'i being satisfied about the boots informed iiJi-. Watte of the circumstance. (.'a tan 25th instant witness returned at bhe 'Aerial times, and acoused went out and rotunifc'J abo.u- an hour later. On the 26th accused returned after tea and stayed only about ten minutes. He asked witness if anyone had been inquiring for him, and on being told no, left at once. There is a back entrance to the shop. Witness did not miss any goods that evening. He believed the trunk to be the same as that which they lost and identified several pairs of boots as Mr. Watts' property by the priceinarks whiqji he himself had made. George Hill, express- driver, deposed that ho knew the accused, Morton, lie saw him on the 25th, at about nine o'clock, when Morton said he had a job for him at twelve o'olook. It was to go to the Pier Hotel and get a trunk that was left there in mistake. Witness went for the box but found there was no box there. He told Morton of this, and he said it had not come there yet. Morton then got in his cart, and he was told to drive round the Anchor Hotel corner. Accused then got down and crossed' the road, but returned shortly after and asked witness for » bit of paper and a pencil. Witness gave him some paper and he went into a shop and cams out and gave witness a note to North, in Rokeby-street, who would fcive him two boxes which witness was to take to the Thames steamer Enterprise. Witness took the two trunks as ordered, and left them near the boat, not to be put on board till the owner arrived. The two boxes in Court were those in question. Witness saw the prisoner Morton again, who wanted him to drive round the Anchor Hotel corner. Witness did not go at once, as he was waiting for a train, but as he got no fare from the train, he picked up Morton and drove up round the Anchor Hotel corner. Morton got out and went down by Watt's shop, but returned and told witness to drive round the corner to Watt's shop. He went round to the Queen-street entrance; and a trunk was put on the cart by Morton. Roberts was just inside the shop door at the time. The trunk was exactly similar to that in Court. Morton told him to take it to the Waitemata Hotel and say it was Mr. Billings' trunk. He did so, and also went to get the two boxes that had bean left on the wharf, but found they had been sent on by the Rotomahana. Witness helped Morton to take the trunk into the hotel, and was told to come the next day, to take it to the Thames steamer. He did not see Morton after that. John Endean, proprietor of the Waitemata Hotel, deposed to the prisoner Morton coming to his hotel and taking a room under the name of Billings. He believed he slept there on the 25th and 2ljih August. On the 25th be brought * trunk to the hotel, and was helped in by the expressman. He locked the door of his room and took the key away. Detective Herbert came and asked to see tbe room, and a key was found to open the door, and they examined the box and found 23 pairs of boots ii} it. The witness Watt* oame up after and saw them. Detective Herbert gave evidence corroborating that of the last witness, and stated that the two boxes that had been sent to the Thames had been sent back, and had been in hia possession since. He had charged the priso« ners with this offence on the 19ch instant. The letter produced was found in Morton's possession when be was arrested at Whangarei, and he had told witness it was written to Roberts. They were then in custody on another oharge, for which they are now awaiting trial. This was all the evidence, and the Bench committed the prisoners to take their trial at the Supreme Court.