RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 1119, 22 July 1865, Page 10 (Supplement)

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thuesdat, 20th July. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.)

Offences against the Police Obdinance.—Wm. Black was charged with leaving three horses unprotected in Princes street, and was fined 10s and costs.— Duncan Stewart was charged with riding his horae along the footpath in George street. He pleaded that he did not know he was doing wrong, and he was fined 10s and costs. —John M'Cubbin was charged with neglecting tfekeep clean the chimney of bis house in Rattray street, so that, from the foulness thereof, it took fire. It appeared that no flames came out of the chimney, but only Bparks, which were caused by some drunken man in the hotel throwing brandy in the fire. As there appeared to be no neglect on the part of the defendant, the case was dismissed.— L. Louis was charged with exposing for sale a quantity ©1 boots and shoes outside his shop in Princes street, and abutting on the footpath. These boots were hung on nails outside the shop, but were admitted not to have been a serious obstruction to the footpath. The defendant pleaded ignorance of the law, and promised .that the offence would not occur again. He was fined Is and costs.—Low and Wilson, batchers, Princes street, were charged with exposing for sale a quantity of butcher's meat, abutting on the footpath. This was stated to be a great nuisance, and the defendants had frequently been warned to keep their meat inside the shop. The defendants were fined 10s andcosts.—W. J. Watts and Co., and F. and G. F. Bullen were each fined 10s and costs for exposing dranery goods for sale outrde their shops in Princes street. Alcorn, Kerr, and Co. were charged with a similar offence in Princes street. Mr Kerr appeared, and stated that the goods had been so exposed by their servants contrary to the orders of the firm. They were fined 5s and costs.

Smuggling.—George Campbell, master of the schooner Pet, was charged, on the information of Charles Logic, DeputyCommissioner of Customs, that on the 11th instant, he was concerned in knowingly harboring, or having possession of certain prohibited goods, namely—l2lbs of tobacco, upon which the Customs duties had not been paid. Mr Henry Howorth appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Wilson for the defence :—Frederick Mallard : I am sergeant in charge of the police station at Port Chalmers; and also an officer of H.M. Customs. From information received on the 11th instant, I proceeded at night on board the ship Eastward Ho ! lying at Port Chalmers, and searched the ship in company with the tide-waiter. On going under the ship's forecastle, we found the large piece of tobacco and case produced. From further inquiries, made on board the ship, we went on board the schooner Pet, which was lying alongside the Eastward Ho ! and proceeded to the bunks. Four men were in their berths, apparently asleep. The defendant was one of these men ; and he admitted being master of the vessel. I told him that I had come to search for smuggled and stolen tobacco, and asked him if he had any on board the schooner, as I should search. He replied that he had none, but immediately after admitted having received a piece of tobacco from one of the seamen of the Eastward Ho ! He pointed to a locker, saying the tobacco was in there, by opening the locker I found the piece of tobacco produced, of which I took possession. I asked who put the tobacco in the locker, and the defendant said he did so, having previously found it in his sleeping place, and that one of his men, named William Adams, had put it there. I then asked the defendant ii he knew that it was smuggled or Btolen tobacco, and he said he did not. , I asked William Adams, in the defendant's presence, where he got tho tobacco, and he said he got it from one of the seamen of the Eastward Ho ! and that when the defendant saw it and asked him where he got it, he gave him the same answer. ;When I asked the defendant why he did not call the Custom House officer who was on board the Eastward Ho! he replied that he thought the Custom House was asleep at the time, and be did not wish to disturb him. The seaman of the Eastward Ho! from whom the tobacco was received was arrested, the case proved against him, and he is now undergoing his sentence for the offence. I believe that the two pieces of tobacco produced are from the same case, as they are both the game kind of tobacco. —-William W. Griffiths: I am a tidewaiter in Her Majesty's Customs at Port Chalmers, and on the 1 lth instant, I was on duty ■on board the Eastward Ho ! I accompanied the last witness throughout his search. (This witness was not further examined.) Edward F. Bifyne: I am master of the Eastward Ho! We have been discharging cargo into the schooner Pet, for some time past. We had a quantity of tobacco an cargo. The whole of the cargo is not yet discharged; but we have already missed three cases of tobacco. The tobacco and case produced bear the same brand as the rest of the tobacco in the ship. I had only one brand of tobacco on board. Charles Logic: 1 am Collector of H.M. Customs in Dunedin, and I produce a document containing my delegated power as Deputy-Commissioner, giving me power to sue under the 136 th Section of the Act. This was the case for the prosecution, and Mr Wilson, for the defence, called William Adams: I am one of the crew of the Pet. I received this tobawo firoja one of the. crew of (be

Eastward Ho! and pat it in my bunk. About half an hour afterwards, the master saw it and took it from me and put it in the locker, saying that he would see about it, and that I would be getting myself into trouble and him also. When I got the tobacco no person but myself knew about it. The defendant told the Sergeant that he found the tobacco in my bunk, aDd- he never denied having it in. the vessel. George Adams: I am one of the crew of the Pet. I was not present when the last witness brought down the tobacco. At night, when the defendant was turning his bed clothes out of William Adams's bunk, he saw the tobacco; he told Adams he had done wrong, and took it away, saying that he would see about it in the morning. Daniel Bremner: I am one of the crew oi the Pet. At night on the 1 lth, and about half an hour before the police came on board, the defendant discovered the tobacco in Adams's bunk. He told Adams that he had done wrong in taking the tobacco, put it in the locker, and said he would see about it in the morning. Mr Wilson submitted that the case was not a serious one against the defendant. When he found that one of his crew had smuggled tobacco on board, he at once seized it with the intention, of giving it up to the Custom House authorities in the morning, but about half an hour afterwards the police came on board, and defendant gave it up to them. The Magistrate said that the duty of the master of the vessel was at once to have called the Cuetom-House officer, and to have informed him of the circumstance. The defendant was apparently well aware of the law,-by what he said to his crew, and he ought not to have delayed until morning, but to have called out to the Custom-House officer who was on board the Eastward Ho. Looking at all the circumstances, there was a certain amount of hardship in the case as against the defendant, and the penalty was a very severe one. The defendant had evidently made a mistake, and he must pay for it. His intentions as to giving up the tobacco in the morning might nave been very good or very bad, but he was inclined to think, from the evidence, that they were not very bad. He was very sorry to have to inflict the heavy penalty provided by law, but there was no help for it. Defendant would be fined LIOO and costs, but he would mitigate the penalty to onefourth, namely, L 25, as he believed that the offence had not been committed knowingly, but by mistake.—Mr Wilson : Then, he ought not to be fined.—The Magistrate: Yes, for he permitted the tobacco to be kept on board.—Mr Wilson: For twenty minutes. After some further conversation, Mr Wilson gave notice of his intention to appeal against the decision.

Friday, July 21. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.)

Dhonk and Disoedehlt.—Ross Davidson was charged with an obscene exposure in Princes street. He pleaded that he was drank and not aware of what he was doing. The Magistrate held that this was no excuse, and sent the prisoner to jail for 48 hours. Margaret Purvis, charged with having been drunk and disorderly, was fined 20s or 48 hours' imprisonment. Robert Kay was charged with a similar offence. He denied having been drunk, and stated that he was weak from the loss of blood. The constable stated that at a quarter past two o'clock in the morning, he found the prisoner lying drunk on a door-step in Princes street, and when he told him to go home the prisoner gave him insolence and became very disorderly. He was fined 20s or 48 hours1 imprisonment. CIVIL CASES.

T. B. Gilliea v. John Daniels.—Claim of L3 6s 6d for sundry professional charges incurred in January, 1862. The defendant admitted being indebted in the sum of Ll 13s lOd, and paid this sum into Court. The plaintiff's case was that in January, 1862, the defendant was served with a rule nisi to show cause why he shall not be fined for non-attendance at the Supreme Court as a juror. The defendant asked the plaintiff to attend to the matter for him, and the expenses were incurred in filing the affidavit, and attending before the Judge. The defendant's case was that when he put the matter into the plaintiff's hand, he asked how much it would cost, and the plaintiff replied, "About 10a 6d." The plaintiff called witnesses to prove that the charges were fair and reasonable, and he denied ever having made a special agreement with the defendant to do the work for 10s 6d. The thing was too ridiculous to be entertained for a moment, as the affidavit cost more "than that sum, without allowing anything for charges and attendance at Court. Judgment for the plaintiff, with costs. A. Gait and Co. v. Stephen Hutchison.—Claim of L2O, as balance of an account for sundry bags of lime supplied. The defence was that the plaintiff agreed to take tar in exchange for the lime. The agreement was that the plaintiff was to take 1000 gallons of tar at 8d per gallon, and that this quantity lay in the yard at the Gasworks, to be taken away by the plaintiff. One qr.-cask of this quantity had been delivered to the plaintiff, which was credited in the account. The plaintiff distinctly denied that any such agreement, was ever entered into by him, as he had no use for the tar. The Magistrate thought that ia this case the defendant's only remedy was by a cross-action. He admitted having received the lime, and he was entitled to pay for it. Judgment for the plaintiff, LlB 18s, after making a deduction for the qr.-cask of tar, which the plaintiff admitted having received. W. Weisner v. George Neish.—Claim of L 4 15s as the price of two windows broken by the defendant, re-writing on the window, and damage done to goods and loss of time by the breakage of the windows. The plaintiff's case was that he occupied part of Mr Hirsch's shop in George street, and the defendant was employed by Mr Hirsch. In shutting up the shop the defendant broke two of the panes of glass, and did the damage charged for. The defendant stated that it was no part of his duty to put the shutters on the plaintiffs shop, but he generally did it to oblige him, as he was putting them on his master's at the same time. On the night in question, while he was putting up the shutters, the wind blew three of them through the window. The Magistrate was of opinion that Mr Hirsch ought to have been sued, as he was responsible for the 'acts of his servant while in the discharge of his duty. Plaintiff nonsuited.

William Lidson v. Elizabeth Glynn.— Claim of LI 5s 6d for sundry work done on the defendant's house. The defence was, that she was a married woman, her hasband being in Wellington, and he ought to have been sued. Case dismissed.

Wm. Kennaa v. Jacob Gay.—Claim of Ll6 03 2d for grocery goods supplied. The debt was admitted. Judgment by consent, with costs.

James Samuel, as Collector of tb,e

Anderson's Bay School Committee, v. James Johnston.—Claim of LS 19s 2d for school rates.. Mr Harvey appeared for the defendant, and took preliminary objections that the defendant was not properly sued, and the notice was not served ten clear days before the day appointed to hear the appeals. Plaintiff non-suited. James Morton "v. Louis Anderson, master of the steamship New Zealand.— Claim of LSO as balance of amount for wages due, for services rendered as fireman on board the New Zealand. This action was brought under the Merchant Shipping Act. The defendant admitted being indebted in the sum of Ll2 9s 4d, and he admitted that all,, the services charged for were rendered. The plaintiffs case was that he was shipped at Boston for the trip to this port, and that he signed articles to be paid at the rate of 40 dols. a month in the United States Currency, or its equivalent. When he carre to be paid, the defendant offered him greenbacks, which he refused, in consequence of the great depreciation in their value. Instead of getting 4s value for each dollar, he would only be able to get 2s, so that in reality he would lose half of his wages for the last ten months. He demanded to be paid in gold. He put in an account which had been rendered to him by the master of the vessel, showing that there was a balance in hi 3 favor of Ll7 2s lid. The defence was that the plaintiff shipped for 40dols a month, and the meaning of the words inserted in the ship's articles, " paid in United States currency, or its equivalent," was that he was to be paid in the currency which ruled at the time he was shipped, and not when he was discharged. That currency was greenbacks, and according to its depreciation in value, the plaintiff was entitled only to receive L3 8s Gd a month in British money, or 40dols, equal to L Bin greenbacks. After deducting a number of payments which had been made to the plaintiff, all that remained for him to receive, according to the defendant's calculation, was Ll2 93 4d. The defendant stated that when he shipped the plaintiff, Ll in British money wa3 equal in value to 12dols in greenbacks; and his chief officer had the alternative of being paid either 40dols a mouthingold,orGOdolsingreenbackß. The Magistrate thought that the account which which the master had previously rendered to the plaintiff, must be taken as the basis of the calculation. After rendering that account, he was not justified in drawing back from it. By this account, a balance was shown in favor of the plaintiff of Ll7 2a lid. He was not satisfied with the case, and he would say that he thought the question could hardly be decided by him satisfactorily. Judgment for the plaintiff, Ll7 23 lid, and costs. Judgments by default were given in the following cases: —Mason Bros. v. Benjamin Smith, L 4 13s 6d, for sundry quantities of grocery goods; Same v. Archibald Nesbit, L 6 15s, for grocery goods; Stephen Bonn v. Thomas Reace, L2O, for one bay horse; William Edmonstou v. Michael Ryan, Ll9 15s, amount of an IOU; William Hodgkinson v. S. S. and A. Lazarus, LlB ss, on a dishonored bill of exchange; Low and Wilson v. W. Brenton, Ll 2a 8d; James Samuel, as Collector of Anderson's Bay School Committee, v. William Hildreth, L 5 18s 9d, for rates.