LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9183, 12 October 1888, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

R.M. COURT.—Thursday. " [Before H. G. Seth Smith, Esq., R.M."| Judgment for Plaintiffs.—ln the following undefended cases judgment was given for the plaintiff's :—Hesketh and Richmond v. W. Gibbon, £10 16s, costs £1 Is; J. .Wilson and Co. v. Joseph Lee, £3 13s, costs 16s 6d ; Devore and Cooper v. James Wingham, £4 2s, costs £1 l'2s 6d ; James Hawkins v. A. W. Bromfield, £4 10s, costs 16s 6d ; James Mahon v. A. Arnold, £5 9s 4d, costs £1 lis; W. J. Ball v. Miss Bremmer, £3 8s 4d, costs 16s 6d; McCullough and Co. v. Walter Birch, £2 2s, costs 16s 6d ; W. J. Dal ton v. Thos. Hawk, £1 18s 9d, costs 7s ; Charles Geo. Andrews v. James Greenwood, £4 2s, costs £112s 6d ; E. Porter and Co. v. A. S. Andrews, £28 lls4d, costs £3 18s; James A. Cooper v. Fredk. Claridp;e, £1 6s, costs 6s ; Murray and Spencer v. B. Dyer, claim 7s 6d, costs Ss ; Isabella Hough v. Stead, £6 3s lid, oosts £1 lis. EdwardTimmsC'artwric.iit v. Grainger I and Others.—This was an action to recover a sum of £9 17s, made up as follows : £1 15s money had and received, and £8 2s damages for breach of agreement. Mr. Burton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cotter appeared for Mr. G. Hulme and seven other defendants, and Mr. Theo. Cooper for Mr Grainger and seven other defendants. The defendants are the committee of the Poultry Association, and the case arose out of a dispute as to the award of certain prizes at the recent show held by the Association. The prizes claimed by tho plaintiff were : Value of first and second prizes, £2 ss, value of certificates, 10s, value of special prizes, £5 7s, and value of entrance fees, £1 15s, making the total amount of £9 17s. Tho plaintiff exhibited a number of fowls on the occasion of the show held on July 26th, 27th, and 28th. The £1 los was for a refund of certain extra entrance fees, with which he alleged he was unjustly charged, and which he paid under protest. It was admitted that, a cheque for this money had been tendered to the plaintiff' for this amount, but he declined to receive it, and the ground for refusing the payment of the prizes was that plaintiff had exhibited a bird which was not Mr. Cartwright's bona, fide property. The plaintiff to the action gave evidence at considerable length, and after the adjournment, a witness named William Taylor Davies, who had to go away, was called by consent. He deposed to having been employed by plaintiff some time in July, to bring a bird from Onehunga to put in the poultry show. He obtained it from a steamer arriving at Onehunga wharf, and delivered it at the show, where he saw Mr. Grainger, Mr. Stephens and others, and delivered the bird to Mr. Grainger. He remarked that it was too late, but Air. Grainger took the bird in and brought witness back the kit; in which he had brought it. They asked who the bird belonged to, and he told them Mr. Cartwright, and some remark was made about making a concession, as they expected the bird would be late. Either Mr. Grainger or Mr. Stephens remarked to him in the passage of tho Park Hotel, that it was a good job Mr. Hulme was not there, or the bird would not be taken in. In crossexamination, witness said Gartwright met him at Onehunga. Mr. Cartwright told him lie expected the bird from Cliristchureh, and he gave him the tickets to take it into the show. It was close on half-past ten when he reached the show. He had no recollection of anything being said about W'aitiku, either by Mr. Grainger, Mr. Stephens, oi himself, and he swore distinctly that Mr. Urainser did not ask whether this was a bird from Waiuku, and he (witness) did not reply yes. The plaintiff was then recalled, and his examination in chief was proceeded with. When under cross-examination he said the bird broughtin by Mr. Davie? was exhibited by him. Mr. Cotter read a letter from J. C. Clark, Christ church, to Mr. Cartwright, relative to this bird. Witness said he entered the bird on the 16th July, but he corrected this by stating that the bird which lie entered on that date was one of his own, but when he examined him he did not consider him good enough for exhibition, on the same day or the following day, and he wired to Christchurch for this bird, so he did not in reality exhibit the bird which ho entered, and the bird which received the third prize was substituted. He did not inform the secretary or the association of the substitution, and he had no property in that bird when he made the entry, but it afterwards became his property by accoptance of delivery, and dealing with it afterwards by putting it into the show ; but he had not paid the price for the bird, because the bird was not, as it was described to him, and he returned the bird. He first saw the bird when he took him out of the box on board the Wanaka at Onehunga, but had no opportunity of examining him then, or lie would have been too late for the show, and he did not see him again until about four or five o'clock in the afternoon, after the birds had been judged, and then ascertained that he had got third prize. On the following day he telegraphed to Mr. Clark that the bird had not come up to expectations, and that he would return him, but ho did not toll the secretary or tho committee that the bird was not, his, as he considered he was his then. The letters and telegrams which were attached as exhibits to the evidence taken in Christchurch were examined by the plaintiff, and acknowledged by him. He admitted having told Mr. Grainger that he had a bird at Waiuku, but he could not be there until Thursday morning, and lie asked for an extension of time, and he was not sure which lie should put in, the one from Waiuku or the one he expected from the South. No bird came from Waiuku. Ho had friends at Waiuku, but had no birds there, and ho made tho statement to Mr. Grainger, so that he should not know where the bird came from. He swore he did not say to Mr. Grainger that he expected the bird from Waiuku, and made no mention of the South. ' He-had no*recollection of any mention having been made of Pukekohe. Ho would swear he did not tell Mr. Grainger that the bird might conic by the Pukekoho train. He never had a bird at Pukekohe, and would swear he never said the bird might come by the train from Pukekohe, or by the Waiuku steamer. The plaintiff was re-examined by Mr. Burton. Mr. Edward S. V. Mowbray, secretary of the Poultry Association, also gave evidence. Mr. Stephens also gave evidence. Mr. Theo. Cooper then ' raised nonsuit points to the effect that there was no action for tho defendants to answer ; and, further, that the plaintiff had been guilty of fraud. The Court then adjourned until next day.

POLICE COURT.— Tun its v. I Before Messrs. W.Dinnison and W. Duncan, J.P.'s.] !):a;NKp.xn'f.ss.—Win. Fitzgerald pleaded juiltv to a charge of being a habitual drunkard, having been four times convicted nf drunkenness during the past three months, and was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. wi-'t'i.LV Wounding. — Michael Burke was charged on remand with unlawfully wounding Charles Taylor. Charles Taylor, draper, residing at Collins boardinghouse, Queen-street, and who recently came from Whangarei, deposed that on the evening of the 9th instant lie went to the house of a woman named Edwards in Chancery-street. Whilst he was there the woman left t he house to go to a neighbour's, and he shortly afterwards heard her scream, "Charlie." Witness ran out, and saw prisoner wielding a bar with which he was striking at the woman. Witness cried out that lie would not see a woman hit like that, and he. grappled with the accused, and received a blow on the arm from the bar, and he was subsequently struck on the face. He could not say whether a knife was used. Mary Ann Edwards deposed that prisoner struck her with the bar, when she screamed for Taylor. When Taylor came into the house Burke struck him across the face and arm with the bar, and he then dealt complainant a wound on the cheek with the knife. Constable Hanson and Dr. Hooper also gave evidence. Thomas Mahoney was called by tho prisoner, and deposed that ho did not see Burke with a knife in his hand during the time the complainant and the woman were in the house. He did not see prisoner strike the woman, or use a weapon at all. Taylor came into the house, and prisoner ordered him out, and when he would not go Burke struck him. Crossexamined : Witness was upstairs, and did not see vhat occurred, but lie heard what was saiii. Tho Bench decided to deal with tiie Case summarily, and imposed a )iue of £10, with an alternative of two months' imprisonment