LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 10084, 20 March 1896, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.-THURSDAY.

[Before Mr H. W. Northcroft, S.M.!

Undefended Cases.—ln the following cases judgment was giv-ui for the plaintiff, with costs:—H. H. Hayr (Mr. Haiina) v. John Pyke, claim £1 lis 2d, costs Gs; Cook and Gray v. Robert Bramble, claim £1 4;i 7d, costs 15s: Same v. Donald McDonald, claim £15 10s lOd, costs £2 2s 6d ; H. H. Hayr (Mr. Hanna) v. J. St. Clair, claim £2 12s 6d, costs lis ; Clement Hartley (Mr. Stewart) v. John Rennick, claim £3, costs 19s; C. C. Fleming v. G. E. Sanders, claim £1 0s CJ, costs 16s; B. J. M. Kemp (Mr. Mahony) v. F. Buxton, claim £23 53 Id, costs £3 Is ; Todd Bros. (Mr. Burton) v. Alexander M. Rust, claim £2 15s, oosts lis; Same v. George Clark, claim £4 14s 7d, costs 15s; William Taylor (Mr. Battley) v. John Lynch, claim £3 Gs, costs 1 £1 ss; R. W. Gallaugiier (Mr. McGregor) v. Alex. McNeil, claim £10 15s lid, costs £1 los 6d; Isaac Hill v. William Carson, claim £1 16s Id, costs 78; Daniel Arkell v. W. E. Hammond, claim £1 lis 2d, costs 6s; James Flynu (Mr. Mahoney) v. Alfred Ayres, claim £3 12s Gd, costs 10s. F. W. Boynton v. Ward and Elliott.— Claim £10, commission on the sale of a double demy printing machine. Mr. Cooper appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Baume for defendants, who are proprietors of the Bay of Plenty Times. Judgment was reserved until the following morning. Wm. Cmristik Fraser v. Wm. Henry CutiKTO.N' and Wm. Elliott.—Claim £15 on a transaction over the Kuaotuuu No. 2 Licensed Holding. Plaintiff prayed judgment for (a) the sum of £12 10s purchase money; (b) the recission of the purchase if it be deemed to be a contract of purchase from defendants, and of the recission "f such contract it deemed a contract; (0) £2 10s by way of damages, in all £15; (d) for such judgment as aforesaid against one or more of the defendants as may be found to be liable. It was also alleged that the prospectus did not sot out the position of affairs properly. Mr. Burton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Baume for the defence. Mr. Burton applied for an adjournment, and stated that under section 88 of the Act, notice had been formally served on the other side to produce certain documents. To him the most important one was the prospectus. The Act required that the person served should give notice of intention to produce, or else show grounds for refusal, and he took it for granted that in the present case there were no grounds— received no notice. Mr. Baume said there was no application. Mr. Burtou submitted, it was simply required by the Act that an affidavit be filed, and said that application had also been made verbally. The prospectus was the main document to him, and lie could not go on with his case very well without it. He could not understand why the prospectus that his client had signed was not produced. Mr. Northcroft: Then you cannot deny that he did not know what was in it. As soon as he signed it, he became responsible for anything in it, did he not? Mr. Burton said he did not deny that, but they alleged certain things about the document, and to get np his case it was necessary fo: him to see it. Mr. Baume said it was one of those cases of fishing. He submitted that the whole principle of the Act was to save expense, as far as possible, to clients. He would take upon himself the responsibility of any costs the Court mighl put upon him, but he declined to produce the prospectus until the proper time arrived, and that would be when plaiutiff was in the box. Mr. Northcroft said it appeared to him that the other side wanted to get the document, and amend what had been alleged in the claim. Mr. Baume remarked that the first he heard of the adjournment was that morning, and he had all his witnesses in readiness to proceed. The case was eventually allowed to stand down, and come on in its turn, and will be heard ou Friday morning.

ARATAPU police court. A sitting of the Aratapu Police Court was held by Messrs. Webb and M. Harding, J.P.'s, on Tuesday, 17th iust., when a number of police cases were disposed of. Captain Marriott, of Tokatoka, was charged with a breach of the Public Works Act, by discharging firearms on the Tokatoka Peak Road. Mr. McLeod appeared for the defendant. The evidence showed that on the evening in question defendant observed a fire dangerously near Novelty Hall, and fired the shot as a signal. The case was dismissed, as witnesses could not swear the defendant was actually on the road. Theodore Burdett was next charged with setting fire to bush-on Crown lauds at Tokatoka, whereby damage was done to private property and to the cemetery. Mr. McLeod, who appeared fop the defendant, took a technical ODiection to die proceedings, and the case was dismissed. Messrs. Houghton and Drum, storekeepers, carrying on business at Tangai, were charged with assaulting three gu-mdiggers, and stealing their swags. Mr. McLeod applied, in behalf of defendant, for leave to confer with the prosecutors. Tho facts were that the informants ran up an account with defendants, and were leaving the neighbourhood without settling, and at a very early hour in the morning. Defendants pursued and overtook them, and the assaults were then committed. Defendants seized the swags, telling the diggers that the same would be returned on payment of the accounts being made. Leave to confer was granted, and the assault cases were subsequently withdrawn, defendants paying £5 as compensation, and informants paying the Court costs. The charges of theft were also withdrawn, with the consent of the Bench, as the accused had clearly no intention to appropriate the swags to their own use.—{A Correspondent.]