LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 9228, 16 June 1893, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

m R.M. COURT.— Thursday [Before Mr. Busli, R.M.]' Undefended Cases.—ln the following un« - defended cases judgment was given for the £laintiffs Alfred Walker v. Bassett Chas. ewis, £2 3a 9d, costs 7s ; J. R. Parkinson v. P. Quinn, 19s 9d, costs 10s ; J. R. Parkinson v. A. Barrett, £2 0s 93, costs 9s; John Jones v. Wm. Sawyer, £2 18s 7d, coats 6s ; John E. Todd v. Otene Paul, £8 3s 4d, costs £1 17a 6d; Berry aud Co. v. J. B. Harris, £6 15s Bd, coats £1 Pis; W. Ponsford (Fenton and Co.) v. H. Bennett, £3 Is, costs 6s; Berry and Co. v. T. J. Connolly, £7 19s 3d, costs 21s 6d; Hellaby Brothers v. D. H. Mclnness, £1 4s lOd, costs 12a; Hellaby Brothers v. A. McMullen, £1 2s 10s, costs 7s; Jane Andrews v. Albert Taib, £1 Is, costs 7s. , George Barb v. Thomas Suttee.— claim was £43, being purchase of a half share in the horse Raglan. The case had been adjourned previously, owing to the illness of the plaintiff, and he had since died. Mr. Cooper pointed out thab there was no provision in the Resident Magistrates Act by which a case could be revived when plaintiff died after the action was commenced. He asked that it might stand adjourned for a fortnight, in order to ascertain the position of the executor in regard to the debt. The adjournment was granted. Joseph James Craig, v. Wm. Vereker Bindon.This was an action to recover £05, being balance due on a promissory note for £100. Mr. Baume (instructed by Mr. Coleman) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Theo. Cooper for the defendant. The defendant's evidence had been taken in Hokianga. The action arose over a promissory note, and tho defence 6eb up was that tho endorsement by Bindon had been cancelled in the presence of Craig and with hia consent. The promissory note was signed by A. G. M. Edmiston, John Petford, and Edward Downing, and endorsed by Bindon. The money was given to Bindon by the plaintiff to enable him to Day a fine. Mr. Coleman gave evidence of the fact of plaintiff and defendant coming into his office as the latter was about to p-oceed to England, and Mr. Craig wanted some socurity. He handed the bill to Bindon to collect as much as he could from the parties, whoso names were on the bill. Mr. Craig detailed the circumi stances under which the loan was given. ; Mr. Petford, whose name was on the bill, paid him £35, and he subsequently, after defendant had given him security, handed the promissory note over to him for collection, but he only gave it to him as his . (Craig's) agent. Defendant had repeatedly . promised to pay, bub had never done so. - When the defendant returned from England, witness asked him for the bill, but he : refused to give it back, unless his name was off it. Witness told him if lie paid £50 as

his half of the bill, he would relieve him. Ha said all right, but he did nob do so, and ho brought back the bill saying, " There's the bill, I'll strike my name off," and he scruck it off. Witness did not consent to his striking off his name, nor did he relieve him of his liability of £50, and he had repeatedly applied for the money. Defendant never denied liability as to the bill. The amount actually advanced was£Bs, and witness was satisfied to get his own monoy back without interest. He positively denied that the cancellation was done with his consent. The witness was crossexamined on this point, bub he adhered to his statement. The defendant's evidence was read over, and counsel having addressed the Court, judgment was reserved. William Handley v. Alfred Burgess Griffiths.—This was an action to recover the sum of £9 Is Gd for aerated waters and cordials delivered to the defendant. The evidence of the defendant was taken ub Tauranga, in which he denied ordering any goods from the plaintiff since 1889, at which time ho left Auckland for Australia, and during his absence his wife obtained a protection order, and became proprietress of the Carlton Club Hotel, Newmarket, which she carried on for her own benefit. Ho never led Handley to believo that he would pay for these goods or that ho was supplying them on his credit. Mr. Burton appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Parr, instructed by Mr. Moss, of Tauranga, for the defence. Mr. Parr raised a preliminary objection that the affidavit was sworn before a J.P., not before the Clerk of the Court, and the summons ought never to have been issued. Ho quoted from Judge Broad's work on the subject in support of his contention. Mr. Burton said Dr. Giles held a different opinion, and had ruled thab an affidavit made before a J. P. was sufficient. .His Worship disagreed with Judgo Broad's views, and overruled the objection, and the case then proceeded. Mr. J. B. Stoney, clerk of the Newmarket Licensing Committee, gave evidence to the effect that defendant's wife was licensee of tho Carlton Club Hotel up to the 30th June, 1892, and during the time this liability was incurred, and it was nob until the Ist of July that tho license was granted to the defendant as owner. The plaintiff stated thab Griffiths returned from Australia in March, and in tho latter end of that month he mot Mr. and Mrs. Griffiths in tho hotel in reference to supply for the month. He first saw Mrs. Griffiths as to the supply for tho following month, and she referred him to Griffiths, saying he had charge now. Witness then saw Griffiths as to his turn of supply, and Griffiths said he saw no objection to his continuing to supply. Witness was several times in tho hotel, and iffit always seemed to bo in the bar, and apparently managed the business. Witness supplied the house with cordials up to the 28th ' of June. In cross-examination, witness said ho had previously done business for 15 months in regard to the supply of cordials to Mrs. Griffiths for use in the hotel, and she paid him.. He rendered an account to Mrs. Griffiths, and tho only reason ho billed Griffiths was that he had seen him about the hotel. In re-examination, witness said ho understood ho was supplying tho husband after ho came' back, and he , always after saw him on business matters. > John Moorehead, the plaintiff's carter, Jas. 1 Mason, the father of Mrs. Griffiths, also gave evidence. Tho defendant's evidence, given in Tauranga, was read, after which counsel addressed the Court. His Worship nonsuited tho plaintiff, without costs. Ciias. B. Stone v. John Buckland. — Tho claim in this case was for £26 lis 6d, amount of a dishonoured promissory note. Mr. Richard Matthews appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. C. S. S. George for the defendant. The defendant was called as ' first witness for the plaintiff, and he admitted his signature on the promissory note to bo his. Tho plaintiff deposed that the defondant was indebted to him for tho amount of the promissory note less £3 lis 4d, for which credit was given. The defence was that there was no consideration ; that some time previous to this promissory note he had sold 76 hams to Stone Brothers, receiving £21 odd. Some of them were sold, and the balance was sent to the Fiji - Islands. Some of them went bad, and the f defendant was induced to give the promis--3 sory note to retire the rirsb one. The 1 whole business was transacted through J James Thos. Hendry, who was then a partnoi ;, with Mr. Stone. A bill was given by the firm for £21 lis 6d to Buckland for those ~ hams, and witness detailed the circum- '• stances, including the paymenb for the hams by a bill. The concern, so far a? ]• Mr. Buckland was concerned, was then i ended, for Stone Brothers had accepted the y hams, and tested them. The payment oi the bill on maturity was stopped by wit ''■ ness, bub ho only did this to obtain time in tho event of any of the hams being re ' turned from the islands, and the second - bill was a mere nothing, only given to give I time. The defendant" in his examination swore that his only dealings were with Hendry, and he sold tho hams, receiving 1 paymenb for the hams by a promissory note for £21 odd. Witness discounted the bill ig but paymenb was stopped, and he went t( Hendry on the matter, who said that some of the hams had gone to the Islands, anc they had nob received accounb sales. H< gave the second bill for the plaintiff! accommodation, but did nob meet ib as hi * had received nothing for ib. If they gavi him back the hams he should give then back the bill, although they were indebtec to him for 9s. He received two years after wards an accounb sale from Mr. Stone witl £3 lis as a credit. He got no consideratioi for the last bill, bub in good faith he gavi ib, so as that a settlement should be arnvec at. Counsel addressed the Court. In giv - ing iudgmeut His Worship said thab judg j menb must be for the plaintiff. Ib appearet 2 that in the first instance there was ai m absolute sale to the plaintiff, bub the subse or quenb arrangements with Hendry made hi 8 " position worse, for he had no occasion to *" I trouble further with tho transaction, bub n ■ ■■£'■ '<" ■ "'

going to Stone he went back on his position, and by giving the promissory note made Stone Brothers his agents. Ho must) therefore give judgment for the amount) of the claim less the amount £3 lis 4d credited. The judgment was for £18 9s 2d, and costs 30s. ' "'., The Courb then adjourned until ten o'clock nexb day. POLICE COURT.— Thursday. [Before Messrs. E. F. Rich and J. McLaughlin, J.P.'s.] Drunkenness. Three first offenders were each fined 5s and costs, or in default 24 hours' hard labour. Maintenance.Shack Kee was charged with having failed to maintain an illegitimate child, of which he was the reputed father. The case was adjourned until June 23. By-laws.—George Harris was fined Is, with costs 7s, for allowing a foal to be at large at Devonporb. Michael Briggs was Eunished in a similar way for allowing a orse to wander. Similar charges against Benjamin Menary and Davies Bros, were dismissed. A charge against Edith Hill was withdrawn. PAPAKURA POLICE COURT. Tuesday, June 13, 1893. IBeforo Captain Jackson, K.M., and J. Atchison, « D. McLennan, S. H. Reld, J.P.'s.] Assaults.—William Morrison was charged with assaulting D. Wilson, jun., in the Globe Hotel on the 2nd instant with a stick. The informant's evidence went to show that the accused struck him over the head in the passage of the hotel. A. Barter and P. Lynch corroborated the informant's evidence. Accused was fined 5s and lis costs, or 24 hours' imprisonment. Robert Werner, John Walker, Hugh Kirk, Patrick Carr, and D. Wilson, jun., were charged ] on the information of W. Morrison, with assaulting him on the night of 30th May, by throwing water and mud upon him. Patrick Carr, owing to sickness, was unable to appear, and his father applied for an adjournment of his case till nexb Court day, which was granted. Mr. Dunne appeared on behalf of the informant, and applied to have the information againsb Hugh Kirk withdrawn, and the bench complied with this request. Morrison's evidence went to show that he was asleep in the stable of the Globe Hotel when the accused committed the assault. Hugh Kirk also gave evidence for the prosecution. Defendants Walker and Wilson also gave evidence on their own behalf, and it was clearly Bhown by a number of other witnesses that Walker and Warner were not within two miles of the place where the assault took place. The case against them was therefore dismissed. _ The charge against Wilson was also dismissed. The court was crowded during the hearing of these cases, and it was evident that Morrison's memory was deficient at the time of the assault.— Correspondent.]