RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 766, 5 November 1886, Page 9

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, October 29. (Before Mr H. S. Wardell, R.M.) WIFE DESERTION.

Robert Rice was charged with intending to desert his wife and two children. Accused pleaded not guilty. Mr Devine appeared for the prosecutrix. Mrs Rice deposed that her husband was a habitual drunkard. He was in the habit of staying out late at night, and when he came home he broke things. Last Tuesday he came home “paralytic drunk,”"and threw kerosene over the place and tried to burn the house down. He left the house on Thursday, taking all his clothes with him, stating that he did not intend to return. Accused admitted that he came home late at night. He said he had told his wife that if she kept the case out of Court he would provide for the two children. The case was adjourned till later in the day, when his Worship gave his decision. He made an

order against the defendant for the payment of 15s a week toward the support of his two children, and ordered him to find two sureties that the money would be paid for a period of three months. ROBBERY. George Raddon and Henry Watson, alias Charles Roskoe, were charged with having, on the 22nd October, broken into the premises of J. H. Shine, and stolen therefrom a quantity of drapery. Inspector Browne conducted the prosecution, and Mr Jellieoe defended. J. H. Shine, draper, deposed that he left his shop looked up on the night of the 22nd October at 6 o’clock. On entering the shop on the 23rd at 8.20 a.m, he noticed that some clothes were missing, and also saw some burnt matches on a ledge projecting from the fixtures. Among the goods missing were two suits of clothes, which witness had in his hands the night before. Subsequently missed a pair of trousers and a waistcoat and other articles. Witness identified the trousers, waistcoat, and suit produced as his property. Witness fancied he had seen one of the prisoners (Raddon) in his shop. Was quite sure he had never sold any of the articles produced to either of the accused. The doors and looks of the shops were undisturbed. Was of opinion tbat the only way the accused could have entered the shop was by raising the shutters. Went with Detective Chrystal to a boardinghouse in Courtenay-place, where be found the stolen articles in a bedroom in which the accused slept. The accused claimed the goods as their own. One of them (Watson) said that the trousers and waistcoat had been left by a young fellowsome time ago. Raddon had claimed the suit. Cross-examined : Identified the suit by its pattern and size. It was the only one of the same quality and pattern he had in stock. Could not swear that other drapers in town sold the same pattern. Identified the trousers and waiscoat by their exceptional size, pattern, and quality. . To the best of his belief no other clothier had the some sort of goods in stock, but would not swear it. Kate Madigan deposed that she was a servant at Mrs Watt’s boarding house, Courtenayplace. The accused had been lodging with Mrs Watts for about six or eight weeks. There were no clothes in the room when they took possession of the room. Saw the trousers and waistcoat produced for the first time under one of the accused’s pillows on Saturday morning. Had noticed some old clothes hanging on a peg in the room previous to this. On Sunday one of the accused had worn a new black coat which she had not previously seen. As there was much other business to be dealt with, his Worship, at this stage, adjourned the case till Wednesday next. CIVIL CASES. The ease of W. J. Staples v R. Laurent, claim £5 Is, was partially heard' and then adjourned for further evidence until the 12th November. Mr Skerrett appeared for the plaintiff. In the case of James Walker v Charles Collier, claim £4 16s 4d, as the value of certain skins, judgment was given for £llls 7d, with costs £1 10s. Mr Barton acted for plaintiff and Mr Jellicoe for defendant. Judgment was given for plaintiff in the case of Sarah Crawford v G. A. Garling, claim £2 6s 3d, with costs 6s. Further evidence wa3 taken in the adjourned civil case Kwong Lee, a Chinese gardener, v Wellington Corporation and Benjamin Cummings, claim £IOO, as damages done to plaintiff’s property by the overflowing of a culvert in the South-road, Newtown, in June and July last. The only witness examined was Mr Hugh McGuire, who gave eviaence as to the damage done by the construction of the drain and culvert. Witness also gave evidence as to the area covered by water, through the culvert overflowing. Witness was submitted to a lengthy cross-examination by the defendant’s counsel. The case was further adjourned till Friday next. Mr Devine appeared for the plaintiff, Mr Martin (City Solicitor) for the Corporation, and Mr Skerrett for Cummings. His Worship delivered judgment in the case of Andrew Casey v the Union Steam Shipping Company, claim £lO as damages to certain charts destroyed by rats, on the voyage from Westport to Wellington by the steamer Moa. The question at issue was whether the plaintiff was bound by the conditions printed at the back of his ticket. Mr Wardell cited a judgment of the Court of Queen’s Bench in which Mr Justice Stephens laid down the following principle : “A great number of contracts are, in the present state of society, made by the delivery by one of the contracting parties to the other of a document in a common form, stating the terms by which the person delivering it will enter into the proposed contract. Such a form constitutes the offer of the ’party who tenders it. If the form is accepted without objection by the person to whom it is tendered, this person is, as a general rule, bound by its contents, and his act amounts to an acceptance of the offer made to him, whether he reads the document or otherwise. To this general rule, however, there were a variety of exceptions, viz., (1) YVhen the nature of the transaction is such that the person receiving a ticket may suppose, not unreasonably, that it contains no terms at all, but is a mere acknowledgment of an agreement not intended to be varied by special terms ; (2) when there is fraud, as when the conditions are printed in a misleading manner, or when, without fraud, the document is misleading; (3) when the conditions are unreasonable in themselves, or irrelevant to the main purpose of the contract.” His Worship continued : Only to consider if, the present case comes within these exceptions —clearly the condition relied on by the defendant is relevant and reasonable, and there is no fraud and no misleading—the only other exception to the rule laid down is when it may not unreasonably be supposed that the ticket is a mere acknowledgment of an agreement without specifying terms. And the evidence satisfies me this case is not within that exception. The plaintiff says he only read the ticket so far as to see that his name was on it. Now the ticket on the face only grants to the plaintiff a steerage passage to Wellington. How, then, did it happen that he took on board and claimed to have carried to Wellington as part consideration of the passagemoney he had paid, the charts which are the subject of the present action ? The right to do so was only given by the conditions en-

dorsed on the ticket, and which plaintiff did not read. He must, therefore, be assumed to have had reason for knowing there were conditions to the contract other than appeared on the face of the ticket, and I hold that he is bound by those conditions, although he negligently abstained from reading them. For facts, I find that the plaintiff, being a steerage passenger from Westport to Wellington by the defendants’ steamer, received the ticket annexed, bnt did not read it except to see his name was on it, and his attention was not called to the conditions on the baok of it. Judgment was given in favor of _ the defendants, with £1 costs. _Mr Jellicoe, who appeared for the plaintiff, stated his intention of appealing, and, at his request, his Worship took a note regarding the finding as to facts.

Saturday, October 30. (Before Mr H. S. Wardell, R.M.) UTTERING- COUNTERFEIT COIN.

Allan Cockburn was charged with uttering a counterfeit coin intended to resemble a sovereign, thereby committing a breach of the Coinage Offences Act, 1867. Mr Jellicoe appeared for the defence, Inspector Browne conducting the prosecution. Nicholas Walters, butcher, gave evidence to the effect that he had given accused 20s for the coin, in question, in Harvey’s shop, on Tuesday last. Witness bought the coin “on spec,” thinking he had got a rare coin, and continued to think so until he had it tested by_a chemist. In answer to Mr Jellicoe, he said he would take 20s for the coin—he thought it was worth that. Accused did not say that the coin wa3 a sovereign. Witness did not know how the detectives got the information on which this charge was based. Inspector Browne asked for a remand. Mr Jelliooe asked that the case should be dismissed. His Worship said he saw no reason for detaining the accused. Inspector Browne said he would find a witness who had colored the coin, and hi 3 Worship subsequently granted an adjournment till Friday next. The accused was admitted to bail in his own recognisance o££so. ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. James Newman, for making use of abusive, threatening, and insulting language, "was ordered to enter into a recognisance of £5 for his good behavior for three months, DRUNKENNESS. A first offender was fined 53, and Mary Darcy was fined 103 for drunkenness. Monday, November 1. (Before Messrs J. E. Nathan, R. M. Simpson, and G. V. Shannon, Justices.) NEGLECTING TO VACCINATE. John Taylor Marshall was charged with, having in two instances neglected to get hia two children vaccinated after having been served with notices requiring him to do so. The defendant did not appear. The offences were proved by Thomas Wyatt, Registrar of Births. The Bench inflicted a fine of 53, with 7s costs, in each case. ASSAULT. Daniel Davis and Michael Callaghan were charged with having assaulted each other on the 16th inst. Both the accused denied the charge. After hearing the evidence the Bench fined each of the accused £l, or in default 48 hours’ imprisonment. BY-LAW CASES. Thomas Taylor, for having driven round a corner at other than a walking pace, was fined ss, with 7s costs. James Blandford was fined Is, with 7s eosts, for having aljlowed a horse to Cases against Elizas Jane Roberts for having allowed the chimney of her house to catch fire, and Wm. Adams, a small boy, for throwing stones in Ghuzneestreet, were dismissed. BREACH OF THE STAMP ACT. Four chargesJjwere brought against Susan Baker, for having on the 26fch April, and three subsequent dates, given an unstamped receipt for the sum of £2 4s. Defendant pleaded guilty. The receipts were given in acknowledgment of payments for rent. Inspector Shearman stated that the information had been laid by the police, at the request of the Stamp Department. He remarked that the Stamp Act was greatly infringed throughout the Colony. Mr J. E. Nathan, the presiding Justice, remarked that it could'not be too widely known that any person who gave a receipt for £2 or any sum above that amount without affixing a stamp is liable to a penalty not exceeding £lO. The Bench, would, however, only impose a minimum penalty. The defendant was fined Is in each case. Tue-day, November 2. (Before Mr H. S. Wardell, R.M.) CONTEMPT OF COURT. Edwin Brown was charged with having committed contempt of Court by appearing in the witness box on Monday in an intoxicated state. Accused pleaded guilty. Sergeant Morice stated that the man could not be charged with drunkenness as the Court was not a public place. Brown was sentenced to imprisonment until the rising of the Court. WIFE DESERTION. In the ease of Robert Rice, who was brought before the Court a few days ago and charged with intending to desert his wife and two children, it was stated that he had found the requisite sureties for the payments toward the maintenance of hia family. ROBBERY. Inspector Browne applied for a remand in tbe cases against Henry Watson and George Raddon, who are charged with stealing a quantity of drapery from Shine Bros., till Friday. The application was granted, and. the accused remanded till Friday at 2 p.m. CIVIL CASES. Judgments for plaintiffs were recorded in the following cases :—Travers and Son v Frederick Suisted, £3B 9s lOd, with costs £3 183 ; Garratt and Co. v William Woods, £6 18s 3d, with costs 15s ; Government Insurance v M. J. Brennan, £64 8s Bd, with, costs £5 4s; F. J. Preston vT. S. Kallie, £2 10s 6d, with costs 6s ; To Aro Loan Co. v N. Fernando?, £5 10s, with coats £1 11s; J_ Chew v William Wilbrandt, £7 Is 6d, witht' costs ss; James Grove v Thomas Parker*: £2 2s (in this case Mr Brandon appeared, ' the plaintiff, and Mr Barton for defendant).^