Untitled

New Zealand Mail, Issue 810, 9 September 1887, Page 23

At the conclusion of a civil case heard in the Resident Magistrate’s Court last Friday afternoon, Mr Gray, who represented one of the parties, made an application for costs. Mr H. S. Wardell, who occupied the Bench, Baid he could not listen to any appeal for costs, and the applicants would have to go and see the clerk. These little discussions about costs were the most irritating part of the whole thing. Mr Skerrett said it would be a good plan to adopt the Supreme Court rule, that the person who succeeded in the set-off should have costs, and also the person who succeeded in the action. His Worship remarked that that was a very good practice, and the matter dropped. Several civil cases were heard at the Resident Magistrate’s Court last Friday, before Mr H. S. Wardell, R.M. A man named O. H Williamson brought an action against A. Wilcox, baker, for £7 10s wages, including £1 5s as commission on new customers obtained by plaintiff. Mr Skerrett appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Gray for the defend* ant. After evidence had been taken, Mr Skerrett agreed to abandon the claim for commission, and his Worship gave judgment for £5, with £1 8s costs. James Donald v Richard Hall, claim £8 0s 9d, as the balance of a contract for making certain alterations to a dweliinghouse, and erecting outbuildings and other work. The defendant paid £1 Is 6d into Court as settlement of the plaintiff’s claim, and filed a set*off for £3 15s as the cost of repairs which had to be made in plaintiff’s work, and damage caused owing to the leakage of the roof, which the defendant alleged was the result of negligent execution of the work. Mr Gray appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Skerrett for the defendant. After hearing evidence at some length, his Worship gave judgment for £4 14s 6d and £1 10s, 12s of which had been paid when the case was previously before the Court. The girl Minnie Searle, who was arrested on Friday morning by Detective Chrystal, on a charge of having stolen a watch and gold-mounted hair-guard, valued at £2 10s, the property of Frederick George Springthorpe, commercial traveller, residing in Cambridge-terrace, was brought before Mr H. S. Wardell. R.M., on Saturday morning, and charged with the offence. Inspector Browne conducted the prosecution. The accused was not represented by counsel. The facts of the case appear in another place. The prosecutor stated 1 that after returning from his visit to Detective Chrystal the accused admitted that she had taken the watch on the previous afternoon, and that while going along Vivian’-

street her hat blew off, and while running after her hat she believed she lost the watch. She also admitted .having taken the hairguard out of the drawer of witness’s dressingtable. Detective Chrystal gave evidence to finding the guard under the girl’s pillow, and also to her confession of the robbery. William Tustin, painter, stated that- while going along Vivian-street, at about 4.30 on Thurs. day afternoon, he found the watch produced lying on the footpath. Saw the circumstances of the larceny in Friday’s paper—in fact he was looking to see if the watch was advertised—and he then handed the watch over to Detective Chrystal. In reply to his Worship the accused said, “ I am very sorry for taking the watch and guard.” His Worship : “Did you take It?” Accused : “Yes.” His Worship: “What are* you sorry for ?” For taking the watch or being found out ?” Accused : “ Very sorry for taking it. ” Inspector Browne stated that this was the accused’s first offence. She had given evidence in a case before the Court some time ago. His Worship said he was going to have inquiries made about the accused’s antecedents, and, alluding to the former occasion when the accused appeared as a witness in a case, he said he was not able to believe what she said then. He remanded her until Wednesday, when he would say what he was going to do with her, and in the meantime she would have to remain in custody. Judgment was given for the plaintiff with costs in the following civil cases, at the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday ; —E.W. Mills and Co. v. J. Brannigan, £7 13s, and costs £1 3s ; same v. A. Cleghorn, £9 18s 3d, and costs 6s ; same v. W. Morrison, £lO 8s Bd, and costs £1 9s; Brunner Coal Co. v. Kilmarten, 10s, and costs 6s ; same v. C. Downes, 18s 6d, and costs 6s; same v. T. B. Brattle, £1 6s, and costß 7s ; B. Egan v. A. Burrows, claim £1 3s 2d, judgment £l, and costs 6s ; J. Stewart and Co. v. J. F. HeatoD, £5, and costs 6s ; J. Duthie and Co. v. W. E. Tyson, £3 10s Bd, and costs 7s. In the case of J. Cate v. A. Chorley, £2 8s sd, an order was made for payment by weekly instalments of 10s, to commence on Monday next. R. Mansfield v. A. R. Manthel, £2 4s Sd ; an order was made for payment of the amount within seven days, failing which a penalty of fourteen days’ imprisonment was to be enforced. M. Dowdswell v. W. Garrett, claim £l7, adjourned to the 20th instant on the application of the plaintiff; R. Cleland v. G. Mallinder, claim £2 16s sd, adjourned to the 13th instant on the application of the plaintiff ; R. Cleland v. C. Pryke, claim £4l 6s lOd, was dealt with in the same way ; G. Lambert v. E. M. Taylor, claim £l6 10s 7d, adjourned to thg 13th instant on the application of the plaintiff. At the Resident Magistrate’s Court Tuesday, before H. S, Wardell, R. M., six children belonging to a man named Thomas Brown, who was sent to gaol on Monday last for wilfully damaging property, were brought up. Sergeant Morice asked that they might be committed to an Industrial School. His Worship said that he would have to make an order against Brown for payment of £2 2s Der week for the maintenance of his children, though it seemed absurd to do so. The children were then sent to the Burnham Industrial School. A woman of dissolute and intemperate habits named Kate Moore was charged at the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday morning with drunkenness and disorderly conduct, and also with being an habitual drunkard. She pleaded guilty to both charges, but stated that she had no opportunity of reforming, as she only came out of gaol the day before yesterday, and had only had a few drinks when she was arrested. She pleaded hard to be let off lightly, but without effect, and was sent to gaol for one month with hard labor. A chapter in the history of an elephant occupied the Resident Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon week. Mr W. K. Bishop, advertising agent, sued Messrs John Young and A. G. Price for £2O. The plaintiffs evidence was to the effect that he devised an elephant whose body was made of wicker* work, while two efficient gentlemen furnished the legs. The defendants agreed to pay the sum claimed for the privilege of covering the “animal’s” back with ad ververtisements for ten days. For five or six days the elephant walked around, and then, as his appearance shocked nervous horses, and accidents appeared quite probable, Messrs Young and Price notified Mr Bishop to at once discontinue the business, and warned him that they would no longer be responsible for any damage. Plaintiff told them he would hold them to their agreement, and in consequence sued them to recover the amount agreed upon between them. Mr Menteath was for the plaintiff and Mr Skerrett for the defendants. The legs of the “ animal,” two men, were called and gave evidence to the effect that they had well and truly perambulated the principal streets of the city. “It wasn’t a frisky animal,” No. 1 Baid, “and it only stopped at apubliohouse once.” The defendants’ case was then partly gone into, but as the hour was late it was decided to adjourn the case till next day, when it was announced that the matter had been settled by the plaintiff, Mr W. K. Bishop, accepting £B. Plaintiff was also allowed costs.