RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 422, 13 March 1880, Page 10

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, March 4. (Before T. A. Mansford, Esq., R.M.) ALLEGED VAGRANCY.

John Buchanan was charged with being a rogue and vagabond within the meaning of the Vagrancy Act, and with being unlawfully on unoccupied premises in Herbert-street, the property of Mr. William Tonks. He pleaded not guilty. The evidence of Mr. Tonks' manager was to the effect that the house in question had been untenanted recently, and that defendant had no right to be there. Detective Warren deposed to having found defendant upon the premises at 12.30 that morning. He knew nothing of the defendant. Defendant explained that he was living with Mr. Sykes, the late tenant of the house, who had not yet given up possession. He (defendant) had the key of the place, and his clothes were still there.

The case was dismissed. CIVIL CASES.

Scott v. Thomas. —This was an action for the recovery of £lB 9s. on a promissory note. Mr. Connolly appeared for the plaintiff, a baker at Blenheim, and Mr. Quick for defendant, the well known auctioneer of this city. The action arose through plaintiff having in March, 1879, purchased a quantity of goods by auction, amongst which was half a ton of sugar, which, he stated, defendant promised to deliver as soon as the necessary quantity was got out of bond. He paid for the goods by a promissory note, which was discounted, but he never got the sugar. For the defence it was alleged that no such promise as to delivery of the sugar was made. The sugar was merely sold to arrive, and was only put up in consequence of defendant being pressed to do so. It was expected in a few days, but it did not arrive in consequence of a rise in price rendering further correspondence necessary, and in the meantime defendant failed. Plaintiff had proved on defendant's estate for the amount, and had accepted a dividend that was paid. After hearing the evidence his Worship gave judgment for defendant. Webber v. Finnimoie.—This was a claim for £25 damages, in consequence of a dog owned by plaintiff having been shot by defendant's orders. Mr. Ollivier appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Connolly for defendant. From the evidence it appeared that the dog had been worrying defendant's sheep, and had been shot in pursuance of a warning given on a previous occasion, When the dog was acting in a similar manner. Mr. Mansford considered defendant was justified in his action, and gave judgment in his favor.

Whitehead v. Fuller and Spencer.—ln this case plaintiff sued to recover the amount of £3 9 s. Mr. Ollivier appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Forwood for defendant. It appeared from the evidence offered on behalf of the plaintiff that the fencing of some Town-belt sections leased by him were repeatedly broken down, out of pure watonness, and that the two defendants bad been seen to do it upon two occasions. In consequence of the damage done plaintiff's horses had wandered and were impounded, and plaintiff had to pay poundage fees, in addition to which he was fined ss. and costs for permitting the animals to wander at large. The fees and fines amounted to £1 95., and this he sought to recover, in addition to which he claimed £2 for the damage done. For the defence it was contended that the defendants, Henry Spencer and Henry Fuller, who were in the service of Mr. Fitchett, were well conducted lads, and both of them, upon being placed in the box, swore most positively that they had not broken down the fence as alleged. The plaintiff's witnesses were equally positive that it was the defendants they had seen do it, and Mr. Mansford stated there was evidently perjury somewhere, Ultimately Mr. Mansford gave judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed with costs, at the same time remarking that though he was sorry to have to say it in public, he was convinced the

defendants had stated what they knew to be untrue.

Saturday, March 6. (Before Dr. Diver, J.P.) ALLEGED FALSE PBETENCKS

Ernest Tanner, a rei-pectable looking youth, was charged with having on March 3 endeavored to obtain the sum of 355. from B. Cohen by means of false pretences. On the application of Sergeant Anderson, the accused was remanded till Thursday, there beiug several other charges against him. Bail was allowed.

(Before Dr. Diver and Mr. C. C. Graham,

J'S. P.) ATTEMPTED SUICIDE,

Henry Ashton was charged with having attempted to destroy himself that morning by jumping into the harbor. George Gordon deposed that he was on the wharf at 9.30 a.m., and saw prisoner jump into the water. Witness helped to pull him out. After prisoner was rescued he wanted to jump in again.

Constable Turner deposed that he was on the wharf at the time, and also assisted to pull prisoner out of the Water. A-nthony Nichols deposed to having heai-d prisoner say " Good bye, all " he jumped off the wharf, and when he was being rescued he said " Leave me alone, and let me drown." Constable Stewart deposed that he had known prisoner as a resident of the Hutt, and formerly as collector of rates for the Highway Board. He had been very despondent lately through reduced circumstances. At this stage the case was adjourned till Friday next. LARCENY. Margaret Craig was charged with stealing. on March 2, one lace jacket, one velvet jacket, two towels, two aprons, one skirt, two bars of soap, and various other articles, to the value of 305., the property of Sarah Ballinger. She pleaded not guilty, and Mr. Gordon Allan appeared for the defence.

The evidence of Sarah Ballinger was to the effect that she had visited prisoner's house on the day in question, and they were drinking together. She laid down and had a sleep there, and on her return home she found that the place had been ransacked, and the articles enumerated were gone. Mr. Allan cross-examined the witness at some length, with the view of showing that she had herself taken the clothes to prisoner's house for the purpose of obtaining drink with them. This the witness denied, though she admitted that she had been drinking when Bhe went to the house occupied by prisoner. She slept off her drunken fit there. Detective Sullivan deposed that he had gone to prisoner's house off Tory-street with a search warrant. He was at first told by prisoner and another woman who lived there that they knew nothing about the things, but afterwards they said they could show witness where the things were, but they were not in that house. Witness produced the search warrant, upon which prisoner said the things were in her box, and he found the articles produced there.

Mr. Allan then addressed the Bench, contending that the prosecutrix had really taken the goods to the house, but was too drunk to thoroughly understand what she had done. He also thought that the charge could not properly lie against prisoner, but that, if any, the other woman who lived in the house, and who was really the occupier, should have been proceeded against. The Bench considered the charge proved against the prisoner, and sentenced her to one month's imprisonment with hard labor.

Mondai', March 8. (Before T. A. Mansford, Esq., R.M.) DESERTED CHILDREN.

Ellen, Alice, and Samuel Higgins, aged respectively 11, 7, and 4 years, were brought before the Bench on a charge of being deserted children under the Act. Mr. A. G. Johnson stated that the children, who were clean and well dressed, could hardly be classed as neglected children, and he would therefore- ask for a remand for a few days to see if some other arrangement could bs entered into for the support of the children, and thus do away with the necessity of sending them to the Burnham Industrial School. He said that the father of the children had gone away with some money in his pocket, and had given the children 2s. 6d., saying he would be back in three months, and that somebody would take care of them in the meantime. Mr. Johnson considered it was a cold-blooded case of desertion. He called Ellen Higgins, who stated that her father had £8 when he went away. He had not left witness and the other children in any body's charge. John Webber deposed that he had been taking care of the children since their desertion. Their father had told him before he went away that he would go and try to earn some money to enable him to take the children to England, and that he felt sure the children would not suffer in his absence, for the Benevolent Society would look after them. Witness stated that he did not think the father really intended to desert the children, but that he would come back again all right. The father used to wash for the children, and look after them properly. In answer to the Bench, the witness stated that the children's father had made no arrangement with him to look after the children. °Witness had merely taken them in after their desertion. The case was then remanded for a week, Mr. Webber undertaking to keep the children during that period. CIVIL CASES. In the following cases judgment was given for plaintiffs :—Barrett v. Mahoney, £1; Holt v. Beard, £1 10s. ; Mitchell v. Nillson, £lO ; Kirkcaldie v. Bodman, £l2 ; Jackson v. Callopy, £4 ss. A non-suit with costs r was ordered in the case of Buck v. Webley, claim for £7, rent.