THE COURTS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 7941, 25 November 1886, Page 3

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT.—IN BANCO. (Before their Honors the Chief Jnstjoe and * ’ Mr Justice Richmond.) ' ‘ SOHRofepEK V.' ITXRCOURT. Motion‘for a new trial'on the ground of gifoesajve damages. The plaintiff was the owner of certain 'land, of which he held a certificate of title. The certificate was lodged •with the defendant under agreement to give security. In April, 1884, a settlement was made whereby the plaintiff gave the defendant security for the balance then due, which security did not include the laud. The plaintiff then applied to the defendant for the certificate, which the defendant refused. In August, 1885, the plaintiff transferred to his wife, and required the defendant to produce the certificate at the register. On the 20th August, 1885, the Registrar gave a notice to produce the certificate. In January, 1886, the Registrar, at the request of the plaintiff, sent a second notice. In July the plaintiff requested the Registrar to send a third such notice. Then at an interview between the plaintiffs solicitor’s clerk and the defendant, on the occasion of the service of the writ in this action, thedefendant said the result of the action Barcourt v. Schroeder was a foregone conclusion, and that all he could-do was to put the plaintiff to as much trouble and expense as possible. On the oonunenoenjent of the action the defendant sent fne certificate to the District Land Registrar, and withdrejv a.caveat be had lodged, but did not inform the defendant or his solicitor. This action was detinue for certificate, and for £IOO damages, .The fjaiutiff Corfe was originally. a party ,tq the suit, , but was removed as a party., Mr Travers moved for a. new trial,, on the 'ground that the damages were .excessive. The plaintiff has transferred all his right to his wife. After the transfer to her and the lodging of the certificate for registration, she was the only -person who could -be, damnified.. The husband is only entitled to nominal damages. All that took place by of aggravation of damages had to do with-Mr Schroeder and not Mrs Schroeder. There must bs some evidence of 4 loss to justify the jury finding more than nominal damages. AnderSOU v Passmore; 7 C, and P. -193 ; Mayne on Damages, 4 Ed., 389. Mr Jetliqoe: Lambkin v South Eastern 1 Railway Company, 5 Ap, Cas., 352. The point la f sally one of misdiregtion, and it is pot open

to tho defendant on his notice. The Judge told the jury to take surrounding circumstances into account in assessing damages. [Mr Justice Richmond : Mr says, taking into consideration all tho circumstances, the damages were too great,] Unless the verdict is gross and the damages enormous, the Court will not interfere. Cham, bera v Caulfield, C Ed., 250 ; Bell v Lawes. Judgment reserved. MAULB V DUNK, The plaintiff did not appear. Mr Jellicoe asked for defendant's costs. Motion dismissed, with £5 5a costs. KE NATIVE LANDS FRAUDS PREVENTION ACTS AND A MORTGAGE, PARAMENA ONE.ONE TO WARD. This was an appeal from the decision of the Trust Commissioner refusing his certificate to a mortgage to Ward. Pararaena One One and other Natives, being grantees of certain land in Poverty Bay, conveyed the same to Tanner and others by a deed dated the 20 bh April, 18G9. Disputes arose, and were compromised, and by deed dated 11th February, 1880, Paramena and some of the grantees confirmed the land to Tanner and the other purchasers in consideration of £IOOO cash and aconveyaoce backtothemof 120 acres; afterward, in consideration of a previous advance made by Ward to Paramena, and which was then due and owing on the 27th September, 188 G, The Commissioner made the usual inquiries, and refused his certificate, on the ground that the mortgage was prohibited by the Native Lands Act Amendment Act, 1878, No. 2, section 4. Mr Ward appealed. Mr Gully for the appellant: A mortgage is not an alienation. The 4th section does nob apply to such a case as the present. He was stopped by tho Court. His Honor t' e Chief Justice ; We need not trouble you further, A mortgage is an alienation within the meaning of the Frauds Prevention Act. Bub this is not a mortgage such as is contemplated by the Act. The Act does not apply to land conveyed to a Native by Europeans. Ordered that the certificate bo endorsed on the deed. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Wednesday, November 24. (Before Mr H. S, Wardell, R.M.) DRUNKENNESS. One first offender was dealt with in the usual way. VAGRANCY. John Dixon, an old offender, pleaded guilty to the above charge. Constable Burrows deposed that he found the accused sleeping in a yard belonging to Messrs Cameron and Plimmer, plumber*, Waring Taylor-atreet, at an early hour yesterday morning. His Worship sentenced the accused to seven days’ imprisonment with hard labor. DRIVING WITHOUT A LIGHT. Jeremiah Lane pleaded guilty to a charge of driving a vehicle without jiroper lighting after the hour of sunset, on the 17th November. A fiuo of 5s and costs was imposed. DRIVING ACROSS THE FOOTPATH. Daniel Sullivan was charged with having driven a cart across the footpath in Elliceafcreet on the sth instant. A. G. Johnston, Inspector of Nuisances, deposed that he saw the defendant drive over the footpath on the date in question. Mr Devine appeared for defendant. Mr Devine contended that the Municipal Corporations Act did not givo any power to frame a by-law such as the ono under which the defendant was charged. His Worship remarked that Mr Devine was broaching'too largo a subject for him* He was content to act by the by-law, and if Mr Devine wished to carry the matter elsewhere, of coarse he could do so. A fine of 5s and co*ts was imposed, and Mr Devine gave notice of appeal. BREACHES OF THE PROPERTY ASSESSMENT ACT. Thomas K. Macdonald was charged with baring failed to furnish a statement of his property in accordance with the Property Assessment Act. Mr Bel! appeared on behalf of the Crown. William W. Lud* brook, clerk, proved that the defendant had not furnished any statement until after the information had been laid. Charles Crombie, Deputy Property Tax Commissioner, deposed to the usual publication of notices. The defendant vaid that he was under the impression that the return had been forwarded, there being a duplicate copy in his office. Immediately he learned of the omission he rectified it. Mr Bell remarked that his Worship had no. option but to impose a fine of £5 and order the’ payment of triple the amount of tax, and be pointed out that the defendant's only means of redress was to petition the Governor. A fine of £5 was indicted, and an order made to pay three times the amount of tax. Similar charges were preferred against Jonathan Blandford and Walter Fell, and a fine of £5 with the triple amount of tax was indicted in both oases.

MALICIOUSLY WOUNDING. When the case against William Williams, seaman on board the ship Timarn, for unlawfully and maliciously stabbing Alfred Bowling, chief officer of the vessel, on the high seas, was palled on, Mr Bell, who appealed for the prosecution, asked that’the case might be adjourned till some future date, as the evidence would be so long as to oooupy the whole day in hearing. The case was adjourned till nest Wednesday. The accused waa formally placed iu the dock, and remanded. SLY GROO SELLING. A. E. R. Armstrong, proprietor of the Ship Hotel, was charged on the information of J, J. Smith, cab proprietor, with having sold certain liquor to Edward Berlin on Sunday, the 14tl> instant. Mr Barton ap. peared for the informant! aqd Mp Jellidoe defended. John James Smith deposed that he went to the hotel at 7.50 p.m. on Sunday, the - 14th. There was a man outside who knocked at the door and window three times as a signal. When accused got inside saw three men named Wearer, Williams, and Karlin sitting in a room. Mrs Armstrong oame into the. room * bottle , of brandy. He was asked by one of the men what ha would have tp drink. He said he would take a lemonade and beer, and Mrs Armstrong went away to the bar to get it. One of the men and witness folowed, Rarlin paid for the liquor. Witness drank some of the liquor, au’d then said that he was doing a bit of the detective' business, Mrs Armstrong then went upstairs laughing. By Mr Jellicoe: Had been previously summoned by tbs defendant. Laid the information against Mr Armstrong on the 19 th. The police had said-that he had better lay the information himself, and they would render all the assistance they oonld. Thomas Williams stated that when be entered the hotel with Berlin and Weaver no one asked them if they were travellers, but he thought one of the men (Weaver) with him had said that he was a traveller, Henry Weaver and Ed. Barlin were also examined. Their evidence went to show that Smith had given them money to go to the hotel and get drink. Mr Jellicoe said that the charge against the defendant was the outcome of spleen on tbepartofthe informant, A. E. R. Armstrong deposed that neither his wife nor the barmaid had authority to serve liquor on Sundays to anyone bat bona fid e travellers or boarders. Was upstairs on the evening in question, and did not know what was going on below. By Mr Barton : Was not aware of any signal by which persons could get into his hotel after hours. Did not know that the party in question had been admitted into the hotel by knocking at the d’Oor three timcta. He employed two barmaids—Annio McCormiok and 1 May Jackson. May Jaokson.'barmafd, deposed that when the men game in, ahcaskod if they ware travel, lets, and they answered “ Yes,’! Had orders from Mr Armstrong not to sell liquor to anyone bat travellers and boarders, Qne of the men asked for brandy, and Mrs Armstrong, who was standing in the bar, ashed what it waa for, and one of the men said .sickness, Mrs Armstrong then said that she could supply the liqnor. By Mr Barton : Believed the men wanted the brandy for sickness, Henry Morice, Police Sergeant and Inspector under the Licensing Act, stated that the Ship Hotel was a well conducted bouse. Was aware that the prosecutor had been informed that the police would take no action in the matter, but if be prosecuted himself the police would assist him, Henrietta Arrstrong remembered four men coming into the hotel on the 14th, Did not know who let thorn iu. Heard the men tell the previous witness that they were travellers. _ They were then served. Would swear positively that the meu said the brandy was for sickness. There was a man named “Andy” employed on the place to do odd jobs. If he gave three knocks on the door it was a signal that you canid admit someone. Would open the door if the three -knocks were, given. By-Mr Jellicoe s This man usually kept ,a look out outside the hotel. Did not recollect that anyone .bad told her on the .evening in qnestioa, that he. was aotiug as a . detective. Samuel Evans, oab proprietor, deposed that th,e informant came to 'his stables one day last week., Witness was conversing with Armstrong. Ho (Smith) said'ho would have revenge on Mr.. Armstrong. Did not hear what,Armstrong said.to Smith. This was all the evidence. His Worship said the whole question was whether' the liquor had been supplied .with the- belief that the men Wore travellers, ! His impression was that the whola thing was done systematically, and little as he favored the informant, he mastconviat. A fine of £2, with 13s costs, was inflicted. In reply to Mr Jellicoe, his Worship said that if he had'any discretion in the matter, the conviction.would not be' endorsed oh the defendsnt’aTicelise. " ' MUCOUS CONDUCT. Otto Johnson, seaman, belonging to the barque Phceaix, was brought up charged

with having, on tho 19fch instant, disobeyed tho lawful commands of the captain. Mr Jellicoe appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. There was another charge preferred against the accused oi having, on the 13th instant, conspired with others of the crew, to disobey orders, thereby impeding the navigation of the vessel. This charge was subsequently withdrawn, and the captain intimated his intention of laying a fresh information. The other charge was thea proceeded with. Edward Miles, master of the barque Phcenix, gave evidence to the effect that the accused had refused to unbend tho mainsail, and said he was not going to do any more work, and ho wanted his discharge. The case was subsequently dismissed on the ground that the articles of agreement were bad. It was shown that there was no certainty in the contract, the terms therein only being described fer any period under six months after signing. TRESPASS. A case brought by W. J. N. Robinson, architect, against A. J. Houguez, _ contractor, for illegal trespass, was dismissed, the complainant paying coats.