LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9036, 20 April 1888, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Ik Banco. Thursday. [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Gillies.] Rhodes v. Kerr : Motion for New Trial. —The application was for a new trial in the case of Rhodes v. Kerr. Mr. Hesketh appeared for the defendant in support of the motion, and Mr. Theo. Cooper appeared for the plaintiff to oppose the application. The case, which was a very lengthy one, was heard before Mr. Justice Ward in October last. Mr. Hesketh said this wt.J a motion for leave to set aside the verdict of the jury, and the judgment of the Court, and enter up judgment for the defendant, or in the alternative to reduce the damages, or as a further alternative that a new trial be granted, on the grounds of misdirection of the jury by the learned judge, the wrongful admission of evidence, and that the verdict of the jury was against the weight of evidence. His Honor said he observed that the notice of motion for a new trial was not given within four days after the trial, and that was imperative under the rules. Mr. Hesketh said that as the defendant was living at Wellington, the time was extended, and notice was accepted. It was by leave. The case was the last heard in Auckland by Mr. Justice Ward. The verdict was not returned until midnight, and Justice Ward left Auckland next day, so that notice could not then be given, and notice was given by consent afterwards. Mr. Cooper explained that judgment was given at midnight on the findings of the jury, and Mr. Hesketh then applied for leave to move as indicated, and he (Mr. Cooper) consented. Mr. Hesketh said the case lasted several days. Two days were spent in chambers framing issues, and the notice was accepted by Mr. Rigby, who was acting for the plaintiff throughout. His Honor said that in this case it did not so much matter, as the case had not been tried by him, but it would have been of importance if the same judge who had heard the case was again to hear the application, as the case would be fresh in his memory. Mr. Hesketh said that Mr. Justice Ward hesitated about giving judgment that night, but as he had to leave Auckland next morning he did give judgment, reserving, however, all rights to the defendant. His Honor said it was awkward that although he bad the Judge's notes they were useless, as he could not read them, but Mr. Hesketh obviated the difficulty by supplying His Honor with his own copy of the Judge's notes. Mr. Hesketh then proceeded to state that the action was brought to set aside a contract for the purchase of the patent rights of Hooker's incandescent light. The contract was entered into between "Mr. Rhodes and Mr. Kerr, of Wellington, who held the patent rights in New Zealand ; money was paid and certain promissory notes were given, but when the plaintiff came to use the patent he found that the statements made to him were false, and he brought the aotion to be relieved of the contract, and claimed damages and equitable relief. The defence was that the statements were not false, or that if they were false, the plaintiff, after discovering their falsity, upheld the contract, and by waiver deprived himself of the right to rescind the contract. The plaintiffs evidence was that it was in consequence of the representations made to him that he purchased. Mr. Howarth, of Wellington, through whom the sale was effected as agent for the patentee, deposed that the representations were not false. Issues were sent to the jury, who found for the plaintiff, allowed some damages, and answered several other issues, and judgment was entered up for the plaintiff. The defendant now asked for a new trial, on the grounds already stated. Mr. Hesketh, in support of the application, reviewed the voluminous evidence of the case, which occupied the Court up to four o'clock in the afternoon, and an adjournment took place until next day. Mr. Theo. Cooper will address the Court this morning after the Chamber business has been disposed of.

R.M. COURT.—Thursday. [Before Dr. Giles, R.M.] Judgment for Plaintiffs.—Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default in the following cases: George Bailey v. J. Mecklenberg, £5 10s 3d, costs £1 3s ; New Zealand Bottling Co. v. James Kelletfc, £1 Is, costs £1 Is 6d; F. G. Edmonds v. Andrews and Cooper, £2, costs 13s; P. Hayman and Co. v. J. Black, £39 18s 9d, costs £1 16s ; King, Walker, and Co. v. John Moore, £28 0s 3d, costs £5 ss; J. Lumpkin v. T. Lupton, £10 5s 3d, costs £2 98 ; Gee and Potter v.- R. Wright, £10 15s, costs £2 7s ; T. S. Mead v. H. Schussler £6 9s 6d, costs £1 16s; James O'Brien v. A. Watson, £2 12s, costs £1 Is 6d; City Council v. S. Hogg, £13 8s 6d, costs £1 ; H. and J. Binsted v. H. Schussler, £1 15s 7d, costs £1 Is 6d; P. Vaughan v. M. Donelly, £1, costs lis; D. Parker v. Agnew, 12s, costs lis ; W. G. Allen v. H. Myers, £1 19s 6d, costs £1 Is 6d ; J. Badley v. Saggett, £2 2s 1 Id, cost £1 Is 6d ; P. Gleeson v. C. Lynch, £8 12s 3d, costs £1 Os 6d; H. H. Hayr and Co. v. Schussler, £1 7s, costs lis.

A. V. Philips v. W. Adcock.—Claim, £9 8s 3d. This was a claim for work done as a saddler, but a set-off was entered, and a portion of the claim had also been paid into Court before the case was heard. Mr. Clendon appeared for the plaintiff, and Dr. McArthur for the defendant. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for the £6 13s 2d, with costs £2. E. Burke v. P. Lynch.—Claim, £1 lis. Mr. Brassey appeared for the defendant, for whom judgment was given, with costs 6s. ' POLICE COURT— [Before Messrs. S. Y. Collins and H. B. George, J.P.'s.] Drunkenness.—Mary Fitzpatrick, an old offender, was charged with being drunk in the bar of the Albert Hotel. Sergeant Pratt stated that the woman had been for some time in the hospital, and the police now applied that the charge be withdrawn. The Bench granted the application. Breach of By-laws.—Abraham Bowden admitted having left his horse and cart unattended in the Market-place, but pleaded extenuating circumstances. A fine of 5s and costs was imposed. How Fever is Spread—Samuel Green was charged with depositing nightsoil at premises situated in Upper Union-street, and occupied by Robert Jordan. The witnesses in this case were ordered out of Court. Mr. O'Meagher appeared for the defendant, and Mr. Geo. Goldie (Sanitary Inspector) said he appeared for the Corporation. Mr. O'Meagher said that Mi. Goldie had not the right to represent the Corporation, but he could appear as the informant. Mr. Goldie thereupon proceeded to make an opening statement, when Mr. O'Meagher again objected, and said that Mr. Goldie could not do so, though he could give evidence on his own behalf. Mr. Goldie then entered the witness-box,' and deposed to visiting the premises in question, when he found nightsoil scattered about the yard. Robert Jordan deposed that on the night of the 3rd of April, about a quarter to twelve o'clock, a man entered the yard of his premises, and emptied the box of the closet into the yard. Witness jumped over the fence, and spoke to the man, saying that he had caught him this time. The man, who told witness that his name was Greenthe defendant in the present case said that he -was sorry for what he had done, and asked that the offence be overlooked this time, and he would not commit it again. Joseph Townley, Assistant Sanitary Inspector at the City Council, and William Lamont, residing at the premises of Robert Jordan, also gave evidence. George H. Brooks, book-keeper, in the employ of Mr. Casey, nightsoil contractor, deposed that the defendant was employed by Casey, and on the night of April 3 received instructions to empty the closet at Jordan's premises. Frederick Birch having been examined, Mr. O'Meagher argued that it had not been proved that the premises were not appointed by the Corporation for the depositing of nightsoil, and further contended that the alleged offence was merely an accident. The Bench upheld the first objection of Mr. O'Meagher, and dismissed the case, without costs. Mr. Goldie afterwards pointed out that regulation No. 9, attached to the city by-laws, provided that no nightman shall deposit nightsoil within the city of Auckland ; but the Bench were of opinion that this could not now affect the case, as the regulation had not been entered. In the case of Thomas B. Smith, charged with allowing an earth closet to remain uncleaned for fourteen days, a fine of 10s and costs was imposed. Assault.—James McMahon was charged with assaulting Annie McDonald, by beat-

ing her on the head with his fist. The prosecutrix, Annie McDonald, deposed that a dispute occurred at the house of Mrs. McMahon (defendant's aunt), in Aber-crombie-street, when witness interfered to protect Mrs. McMahon, and she was then assaulted, defendant striking her repeatedly on the head. Defendant made a statement alleging that the case was the outcome of a plot to get him out of the way. The Bench ordered that McMahon be bound over in his own recognisances of £10 to keep the peace for twelve months.

WORTH R.M. COURT. Friday, April 13. [Before Messrs. M. Angove and N. Wilson, J.P.'s. Threatening Language. — John Platts was charged with threatening to knock down and otherwise to ao grievous bodily harm to Joseph Phillips, on March 25. Defendant being a German and not thoroughly understanding English, Mr. Kripnerwas sworn as interpreter. Joseph Phillips, complainant, deposed that on the 25th March he was passing along the public road, opposite defendant's house, and when within about two chains of the Kourawhero bridge, he met Mr. Platts, who held up his fist, and in an excitable manner said, " Stop ; if you say one word, me knock you down." I told him I was on the public road, when he repeated the words again, and hit me a blow on the chest. I told him that, was enough, and asked him what wad he going to do. His son and daughter then came forward, and spoke to their father in. a language I did not understand, and then pushed him along the road away from me. 'here was no other person present. Defendant had previously threatened to murder me. My land lies between my house and Platts', and it is not safe for me to go there to work, as I am afraid, by reason of defendant's threats, and I ask the Court for protection. I have never provoked defendant at any time, nor given him cause to act towards me as he has done. In reply to questions by the Court, witness said it was about two years since he threatened to murder him. Elizabeth Bridge, wife of Thomas Bridge, was at Platts' place on the 28th March, when he way very excited. He said he had family quarrels. After a short time he began pacing up and down the room, and said something I could not understand, and then said "Curses on the Soul of Joseph Phillips ; "then stopped, shook his hands, and said, " I will murder him." She had never known Platts to use threats to Mr. Phillips except on this occasion. Bear a farmer, residing at Kowrawhero, deposed that he had a conversation with Platts, and learned that he was very bitter against Phillips, so much so that witness made it his business to go and warn Mr. Phillips to keep out of defendant's way. Defendant deposed that whab Mr. Phillips had said was not true, and made a long statement about the origin of the unpleasantness. He had no means of living except by his land, and if Phillips would buy it, he would leave Mahurangi for ever. Vincent Stolzpart, stepson of defendant, saw what took place on March 25th ; was 70 yards distant, but did not see his stepfather strike Mr. . Phillips. Mr. Phillips struck his stepfather. He had known Mr. Platts for 12 years. He was of a violent temper, but witness never knew him do anyone any harm. In reply to questions by the Court, witness said he was 70 yards distant at first, but gradualy drew nearer, and when about three yards distant heard Mr. Phillips say that he would put his two boys on to Mr. Platts. Defendant was bound overin his own security for —to be of good behaviour and to keep the peace for six months ; in default, six months' imprisonment.[Own Correspondent.

PUKEKOHE R.M. COURT. Tuesday, April 17.

[Before Thomas Js.ckson, Esq., 8.M., and Messrs. Koulstou, Wilkinson, and Wright, J.P.'s.]

Abusive Language.— Watson, of Mauku, was charged with using abusive and threatening language to one Bernard Fitzpatrick. Watson pleaded not guilty. Fitzpatrick, after being sworn, could or would not bring forward any evidence, nor would he make a statement. The Bench, without any consideration, dismissed the case, each party to pay their own costs. Threatening Language. —Sarah Budge was charged, on the information of George Russell, with using threatening language to his children, who were at the time returning from school. The children swore that Mrs. Budge ran after them with a fork, and they had to run to a Mrs. Johnson for protection. Mrs. Johnson stated that the children were crying when they camo to her place. The Bench considered the case proved, and fined Mrs. Budge 5s and costs, 14s. Philip Henry v. McFadden. — Claim, £22 3s Hid. Mr. Franklin appeared for the defendant. Joseph Henry, son of the plaintiff; deposed : My father is a storekeeper residing at Mauku. I, in conjunction with my sister, keep my father's books. The Bench found, on going through the accounts, that they did not agree in many instances with defendant's passbook, so that items to the amount of £1 8s 6id were admitted, interest £1 Is, and a sum of 17s 6d not credited, making, £3 7s (Hd, which, taken from £22 3s Hid, leaves a "balance of £18 16s lid, for which sum the plaintiff received judgment, with costs £2 lis, defendant to pay 30s a m"nth. ' George Starnes v. Henry Wilson.— Claim, £9 14s Id. No appearance of defendant. George Starnes, butcher, residing at Pukekohe, proved the amount as owing, and judgment was given for plaintiff with costs. [Own Correspondent.]