RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 390, 21 March 1863, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

I'RinAv, March 20. ■(Before A. Clietliuu Strode, E*q., R.M.) Dkunkisxness.—Sophia Heap and Elizabeth Taylor, were each fined 20s and coats ; in default of payment to bs imprisoned 48 hours. Embezzlement. —John Helderwick was charged with embezzling LIS, the property of his employers, , Messrs Kenyon' and Maidock, solicitors. The prisoner w.'is in. the employ of the pro editors as clerk. On three occasions, lie called on Mrs Charlotte Dawson, of the Melbourne Ulnb Hotnl, asking for piyment of interest on money which she had borrowed on mortgage. On th- I.sth nit. she paid bim Lls, and he gave her a receipt, wliich was produced in Court. Mr Maddock stated that the prisoner was employed by tlie firm a3 acco-iritant, from the end of Jauu.iry lo about the 17th February. His duties were to receive moneys when instructed to do so, and to keep the books. On or about the IGth ult. he instructed tlie prisoner to write a letter to Mrs Dawson, requesting immediate payment of Lls; and subsequently he instructed him to {to and demand payment. On his return, he asked the prisoner whether he had received the money ; and the prisoner stated that Mrs Dawson had expressed her inability to nay it. In consequence of this, Mr Cleve, the transferee of the mortgagee, instructed tliat the property should bo advertised for sale ; and as soon as the advertisement oopeared, one of Mrs Dawson's trustees came to the office 2nd produced the receipt now before the Court. On asking the nrisoner, " How is it you have not accounted for this money V he replied, " I spent part of it in drink, and the remainder was stolen lrom me."—Mr Wilson, for the prisoner, reserved the defence; and the prisoner wjs committed for trial at the Supreme Court. civil cases. D Stevenson v M'Lean, L 5. This was a claim for the alleged illegal detention of a L 5 note, under the following circumstances. It appeared that on the 17th instant, the plaintiff went to the; place of business of the defendant, who is a farrier, for the parpose of: paying bim come money he owed him. Some dispute arose between t!ie parties on the subject of shodding horses, in the course of which the plaintiff, it was alleged, pulled out a L 5 note, and offered to bet that amount against a sovereign that he would produce a man who could drive a better and a safer nail than the defendant; upon healing this a work man in the employ of defendant, snatched the L 5 note from plaintiff and together with a Ll note of his own handed them to the defendant as stakeholder. The parties, however, subsequently met and the matter being again talked over aad as there was come difference of opinion as to the terms of the wager, ' plaintiff'demanded back'is stake?,; to this the defendant declined to accede, wliich was the cause of the present proceadings. The Bench gave a verdict for the plaintiff for tha amount with costs. Gordon M'Kinnon v James Newcomer, LlO Gs 61. Cash lent. No appearance of defendant. Verdict for plaintiff with costs. Lazarus ti Samuel-On the application of Mr Wilson the hearing of this case was postponed for a week, owing to the. unavoidable absence of defendant, who is in the country. Nathan v Jone?—£3 ss. This was a claim for goods sold and delivered. The defendant did not appear, and the Bench awarded the amount claimed with costs.

D'Arcy and Bergtn v Wright, Robertson anl Co This was a claim of £20 for alleged damages sustained under the following circumstances: —It appeared that on Mond iy, the 9th inst, the plaintiffs' toak sdx Working bullocks to a graziug paddock in the North East VaUey, and agreed with the owner (Mr Russell) to pay for them at the rate of 9d per head per night. The bullocks were branded, and two of them were particularly marked, one haying its horns sawn off, and another a ring through, its nose. On tlie 12th inst, (the following Thursday) having in Ihe meantime engaged with a firm in town to take a load of goods to the Dunstan, plaintiff went to -tlie paddock to fetch his bullocks. On arriving at Mr Russell's paddock, however, he was disappointed to find only two of his bullocks, and was informed by Mrs Russell that a mob of cattle belonging to Messrs Wright, Robertson and Co had been recently taken away, and that the missing bullocks must have been amongst them, as they could not possibly escape from the paddock. Plaintiff subsequently '. saw _Mr Stevenson (a. member of the defendant's firm) who told him that the fifty-nine bullocks that were left at Russell's paddock had beau sold to a C. W. Smith, on the Taieri Plains, where plaintiff afterwards proceeded to and foufid his bullocks. Five days elapsed before the bullocks were got into town, through Mr Smith refusing to give them up in the first instance, and a deposit of Ll which plaintiff and his mate had paid to Me*sis Murray, Kerr and Co., as a guarantee, had been forfeited. The delay had further necessitated expenses, both himself and mate having been kept in Dunedin five days longer than they intended ; and the loss of the trip to tlie Dunstan was not less than L 32, that being the current rats of cartage. In reply to Mr Haggitt, who appeared for the defendant, olaintiff said he was not sure whether Messrs Wright, Robertson and Co.'s cattle were in Russell's paddock before he sent his bullocks there ; he had heard tbat the-y were. Mrs Russell was sworn, and proved that she had told tlio party who fetched defendant's cattle away, that there were six other working bullocks in the paddock, and requested him not to make a mistake and take them away with his lot. Mr Haggitt, on behalf of the defendants, contended that whatever damage had been sustained by the plaintiffs, his clients, Messr3 Wright, Robertson and Co., were not liable. The fifty-nine bullocks referred to had been placed inithe paddock, and on the 3rd or ith instant the animals had been sold to Mr Smith, whose man, in ignorance, took them away with his. master's cattle. Wnen the plaintiff applied to Messrs Wright, Robertson and Co., and told tbem how he was placed, Mr Stevenson, of course, offered him any assistance in his power to recover them, but certainly did not admit any liability. If there was aDy loss on account of which plaintiff was entitled to recover, the action should be brought against Mr Smith, who was owner of the cattle at the time they were removed, and the employer of the man who caused the inconvenience. The bench were of opinion that looking at all the facts of the case, the defendants were clearly liable, and gave a verdict for Lls, with costs of the proceedings. Wm. Leslie v Jno. Foy, L 4 10s—This was a claim for three days' use ofthe punt Emma, at 30s per day. It appeared that the defendants men had taken the plaintiff's punt in mistake on the 12th instant, nnd used it for the two following days. Defendant • had since met plaintiff, and offered to recompense him for the mistake, but thinking the amount claimed by plaintiff (30s per day) excessive, he had allowed the matter to be brought into Court. The magistrale agreed with the defendant that the charge was excessive, and decided the matter by awarding 30s. James Smith o Chaplin, L6—Commission on the purchase of four bullocks, being. five per cent, on Ll2O. Verdict for plaintiff with costs. Lewis v Tom Fawcett: L 2 lis being the balance of an account of L3l6s, for goods supplied. The defendant did not appear, and the deliver j of the goods I having been proved, the bench awarded the amount with immediate execution.

The following caseß were struck out, tliere being no appearance of either party.—Baker v Rogers, Anderson ahd Stoddart v Hare, Same v Churchill, Wilson and Wain v Truman.