RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 741, 14 May 1886, Page 12

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, May 6. (Before R. A, Stratford, Esq., R.M ) CIVIL CASES.

Messrs E. W. Mills and Co. v H. S. Fitzherbert. Mr Brandon appeared for the plaintiff ; defendant defended his own case. This was a claim for £8 12s on account of goods supplied to the Petone Naval Artillery, of which defendant was captain. Defendant paid into Court £3 2s 6d, with 5a costs, in satisfaction of claim. Mr Brandon stated, in answer to the Bench, that defendant was sued both as captain of the corps aod in his private capacity. E. W. Mills gave evidence to the effect that defendant opened an account on behalf of the Petone Naval Brigade in 1882, and goods had been entered in his name as captain of the corps. He had seen him in his store ou several occasions; when orders had been taken. He could not swear to having heard the defendant give the orders, because he could not remember the dates. Defendant had asked him to send in bis claim to Captain Johnston, and also to send is vouchers to Captain Anderson of the Defence Department. He had done so, bat could get no satisfaction, as the vouchers were sent back. George Murch, storekeeper for E. W. Millsand Co., proved the entries of goods against the Petone Naval Contingent. H. S. Fitzherbert gave evidence to the effect that he had no recollection of ordering any of the items in 1882. Was junior lieuteuaut of the Wellington Naval Brigade at that time. Wa3 in charge of No. 3 cutter, for which the goods were required. The boat was kept at Petone. Members of the Wellington Naval Brigade residing at Petone, aud others living there formed what was called the Petone Naval Contingent in 1882. v It became the PetoneNaval Artillery in August, 1883. He had been appointed captain of the Brigade. He had recommended that the accouut should be paid by the Brigade. He had never given authority to have the goods entered in his name. Mr Henry, warrant officer of the Petone Naval Brigade, dep sed that he was in 1882 a petty officer in the Wellington Naval Brigade. He remembered oars and other articles being procured from fhe plaintiffs for No. 3 cutter. Lieutenant Bennett ordered the oars. Mr Brandon’s contention was that the goods were supplied by defendant's order, and that therefore he was personally responsible. He left it to the Court to decide as to the point he raised in reference to the defendant’s liability as captain of the Petone Naval Artillery. Mr H. S. Fitzherbert submitted that the goods were not ordered by the Petone contingent, as at that time it was not a separate body, and had no funds of it 3 own. Under the Volunteer Act, the captain wasjthe proper person to sue,, and at the time the goods were ordered he was simplyalieutenantintheWellington Naval Brigade. Mr Stratford said the whole question bristled with law points, and he would deliver judgment at 11 o’clock next morning. Bradnock v Page, claim for £lO 2s. Mr Izard, jun., appeared for plaintiff ; Mr FitzGerald for defendant. This was an action to recover 2s paid under protest to defendant, who had impounded, on the 4th of April, two cows belonging to plaintiff, £5 damages, and £5 for stopping defendant’s right to use. a public road. By consent, the third item was waived, as involving a question of title which could not be heard in that court. The facts were that both parties’' properties adjoined on the South Karoriroad. The properties were partly fenced off, but the cattle of the plaintiff occasionally strayed on to defendant’s land. Defendant had complained of the trespass, and, on the 4th April, secured with bars a slip-panel on his property, leading to the South Karoriroad. On that date plaintiff wrenched off one of the bars, and endeavored to force his cattle through on to the road. He was unsuccessful, and defendant impounded two cows, and demanded Is per head for trespass, which plaintiff paid under protest. The Court having heard the evidence, thought the defendant had acted within the provisions of the Impounding Act of 1884, and gave judgment accordingly, Monday, May 10. (Before Messrs R. Hart, J. Lockie, J. H, Bethune, J.P.’s ) DRUNKENNESS. Three first offenders were fined 5s each, in default 24 hoars’ imprisonment. William

Anderson, for being drunk while in charge of | a horse, was fined 10s, in default 48 hours | 'imprisonment. BREACH OF THE PEACE. George Barry pleaded guilty to a charge of using threatening language whereby a breach of the peace was occasioned. James McJi.eever, similarly charged, also pleaded gui ty. Constable Davy, who was called by Inspector Shearman, gave evidence as to arresting the accused at 10.25 on Saturday night. Inspector Shearman remarked that these cases were frequent, but the offenders often . escaped through the paucity of the police doing duty here. Fined 10s each, in default 48 hours imprisonment. LARCENY. David James Killen Lazarus was charged with stealing three £1 bank notes aud £4 in money, the property of David Lazarus. Inspector Shearman said the informant was the accused’s mother, and she did not wish to offer any evidence. The accused was accordingly discharged. FALSE PRETENCES. _ . Clement Harding, charged with obtaining £3 in. money from William Francis by fa se pretences, was remanded to Masterton. AN ABSCONDING! APPRENTICE. James Sainsbury, charged with_ unlawfully absenting himself from the service of bis employer, Robert Hannah, pleaded guilty. Mr Treadwell, for the prosecution, applied that the boy should serve the amount of time his employer had lost by his absence, and an •rder was made to that effect. Mr Hannah said he simply wished the boy to go hack to work, and the Bench made an order to that effect Wednesday, May 12. (Before Mr H. A. Stratford, R.M.) ■DRUNKENNESS. For drunkenness penalties were inflicted as follow Alfred Jardine, 10a or 24 hours imprisonment ; Christina Lawson, seven days bard labor, and to pay 2s expenses incurred'in taking her to the'lock-up. iBY .LAW OFFENCES. E. J. Beavis was cbarged'witb having carried on the business of a tallow melter without being duly licensed, and thereby caused an offensive smell. Mr Fitz Gerald was for the defence, and Mr A. G. Johnston, Inspector of Nuisances, for theiprosecution. Mrs Flockton and Mrs Briscoe, who reside near the defeudant’s place, gave evidence as to _ the obnoxious smell arising from his premises, Frank Bedford deposed that he had seen some fatty substance in a boiler on Beavis’ premises, and that he had had to take medicine to counteract the smell of it. Mr Fitz Gerald -submitted that the-existence of a smell did not affect the point at issue, which was that the defendant had carried on a certain busi,ness without a license. He would prove, he added, that the mutton fat was invariably sent to tallow chandlers —and tallow was defined in dictionaries as mutton fat. Mr ■;Beavi3 was called, and denied that he§had used any other than beef fat. Other vvitnesses corroborated his evidence. His Worship said it was evident that the witnesses had grounds for complaint, but their proper ■mode of proceeding was by petition to the City Council as a local Board of Hea.th under the Public Health Act. The evidence adduced was insufficient to sustain the charge. The information was withdrawn. John Carson, for allowiug offensive matter toiflow from his premises in Par-liament-street, was fined 10s with costs, 9s. For allowing offensive matter to accumulate, .John Fuller, George Greenfield, Bobert Erskine, and David Noble were each fined 5s with costs, 7sand John Chaney was fined 20s, with 9s costs. Charles Dowsett, similarly charged, was defended by Mr Brown. He was fined :20s, with costs £2 12s.

UNREGISTERED DOGS. Charles Dowsett was charged with keeping two unregistered dogs. Mr Brown for the de-•f-ence. It was proved that one of the dogs Is under six months of age, and the other is •owned by the defendant’s son, and the case -was therefore dismissed. •CARTING RUBBISH. Dennis McGonagle, for carting offensive matter without a license, was fined ss. (This case was heard before Messrs E. Brady and F, Brady, J.P.’s.)

Judgment for plaintiffs was given in the following cases at the Besident Magistrate’s Court last Friday Scott Bros, v Newland, £l7 108 6d ; Flockton v Kelliher, 13s 6d ; same v McCarthy, £7 4s 9d ; E. W. Mills and Co. v Adams, £ls 14s 6d ; Chimside and Scott v T. B- H. Taylor, £3 1.7 s 6d ; Gear Meat Company v Hebben, £1 15s 6J ; same v Kelliher, £7 Os 4d ; same v G. Budge, £5 13b sd. John Sunnex was charged at the Besident Magistrate’s Court last Friday morning with failing to satisfy an order made against him for the payment of 5s a week for the maintenance of hi 3 mother, the sum of £lO 5s being now due on the order. A letter was received from the mother, askiug that her son John should be leniently dealt with, as he had had bad luck ; but that her other sons, Thomas and William (against whom summonses were also issued) should' be made to pay, because they were in a position to do so. Mr Stratford made an order for the payment of £1 a week off the arrears, in addition to the 5b a week. It was stated that Thomas Sunnex had p id the amount of his arrears into Conrt. William Sunnex was charged with bemg in arrears £2l 3s 4d on the 17th April on account of a similar order. Mr James, the Clerk of the Court, having given evidence as to the default, the accused was sentenced to a month’s imprisonment, and ordered to give surety for future payments, himself in £25 and one surety of a similar amount. In default of finding the surety the accused to be imprisoned for six months. Mr Stratford, 8.M., gave judgment last Hriday morning in the case Mills v ITitzherberfc. His Worship held that Mr Fitzherbert could net have been, at the time in question, an sgfst or a principal as far as an existing Compaay was concerned, since the Petone Naval Brigade, did not at that time exist. But, presuming the defendant to have been a subordinate officer of the Petone Contingent of the Wellington Naval Brigade, he did not appear to have had any authority to incur debts on behalf of the Wellington Naval Brigade, to which he was attached, from the jommanding officer. There was, in fact, no expressed, constructive, or implicit ratified authority. This being discovered by the plaintiff, he had the right of election whom he would sue. The evidence as to the first

item pointed to the fact of a written authority • from one Lieutenant Bennett, and could not, therefore, be allowed as against the defendant. The person who gave the order should be asked for that sum. His Worship said he would therefore deduct, first the interest, which he could not allow, leaving a sum of £7 Is Id, and from that sum he deducted the first, item of £1 Is, as a debt incurred by somo other person than the defendant. This loft a sum of £5 Is 6d, of which the defendant had already paid into Court, £3 2s 6d, leaving a sum of £2 19s. Judgment would therefore be given for £6 Is 6d, including the amount paid into Court. Mr Fitzherbert said he had been placed at a disadvantage in not being able to get Lieutenant Bennett’s evidence, which would prove that authority bad been given to him (defendant K His Worship said if Mr Fitzherbert felt that he had suffered an injustice be would stay judgment in order that a re-hearing might be applied for. Mr Fitzherbert accepted this suggestion. In several cases of drunkenness heard at the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Monday the Hon Mr Hart, who occupied the Bench, asked the accused where they had obtained the liquor which intoxicated them. The answers, however, although varied, were not particularly instructive. One man obtained his liquor from a man who had a bottle in his pocket, another was blissfully unconscious, but a third admitted that he had had “ something to drink at an hotel at Kaiwarra.” The Bench, after duly fining the accused, made a note of the Kaiwarra admission. The only case disposed of at the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Saturday was one of drunkenness against Samuel Ballance. Accused was defended by Mr Brandon, but the evidence of the arresting constable and watch-house-keeper proved the offence, aud Ballance was fined £l, in default three days. Defendant’s solicitor paid the fine. The case Fraser v. Bnckridge, for insulting language, was set down for hearing, but, on the application of Mr Izard, jun., the case was adjourned until Tuesday. _ _ When the adjourned case of J. M.. Eraser v. E. H. Buckridge, a charge of using obscene and abusive language, came on, Tuesday, at the Besident Magistrate’s Court. Mr Izard, iunr., stated that the matter had been settled, and the only question for the Con it was as to the expenses of one witness—3os. The Court thought the charge reasonable ; and Mr Skerrett, who appeared for the defendant, also acquiescing, the charge was withdrawn. At the Resident Magistrate’s Conrt Tuesday, before Mr Stratford, 8.M., Samuel Brice was fined 10s for drunkenness, in default 24 hours’ imprisonment. A first offender was fined 5s or seven hours. In a charge |of furious driving preferred against Ah Chee, the Celestial was understood to admit the offence, but pleaded that he was unable to manage his horse. His want of skill or strength cost him £l* with costs ss, Constable Davy having stated that defendant appeared to make no effect to pull the animal up. John McGregor, whose loquacity tried the patience of the Bench and the police attendants* was charged with behaving in an insulting manner on the Queen’s Wharf on the 2,7 th ult. From the evidence of Jas. Gibbs, it appeared that accused and a man named Anderson were fighting on the date mentioned, anil the witness he ped to separate them. Henry Miller was called, but stated that he was too far off to notice anything more than a slight tussle. Accused stated that he had merely knocked against the other man. There was no fightiug—that was the “ naked truth.” He was proceeding to “ explain,” when his Worship cut him short, by giving him the benefit of the doubt and a caution. During the hearing of eases in which persons were charged with permitting nuisances to exist on their properties in the shape of offensive matter, Sir Stratford said he could not accept the explanation (offered by a defendant) that it was impossible to remove the nuisance because there was no proper drainage in the vicinity. His "Worship added he was determined that while he occupied the Bench such offences as those under consideration should be severely punished, and he requested the Inspector of Nuisances to inform the Court when persons were charged, if those persons had been previously convicted. Although the penalty inflicted for a first offence was only 5i it might be made £2 for a repetition.