Untitled

Otago Daily Times, Issue 1167, 28 September 1865, Page 5

Wednesday) 27th Skptkmjjeh. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) There were no police case 3 before the Court this morning. civir. cases. Charles Burkhart v. James Johnston. — Claim of -Jj's, as two weeks 1 wages, at the rate of L 2 103 per week, from the 11 tit to the 25th of April. The plaintiff had previously been in the'defendant's .employ at the rate of L 2 10s per Week, but -left, and on the 11th ot April, he was asked by the defendant to come back, at the same rate of wajjes as before. Mr Harvey appeared for the defendant, and examined the piaih'tfu^ but offered no'defence as his j client was not preseut. Judgment for the plaintiff with costs. ... . •

, John MilhamVi James Poughty.—Claim of LlO as balance of wages. For the defence a release was pleadeJ, under a final order from the Insolvency Court, and the plain tiff withdrew the case in order to save the costs. : ■

Stevens's Trustees v. W. J. Cooms. Claim of L 24, reduced to L2O, for rent due' fdr premises occupied by the defendant, in George street. A letter was put in in which the defendant admitted his tenancy, and'a wifness was'produced, to whom the defendant had admitted that he was due four months' rent, at L 6 per month. The. defendant'sistatemerit was that he originally took the premises from Snmner and Gunn, and when he heard that they were about to assign their interest to Mr Steven?, he called upon that gentleman and told him that he would riot stay in the premises unless he put the house in proper and tenantable repair. Mr; Stevens promised to make the repairs, but did not do»so, and the defendant remained in'the house for four months without paying rent to any person. He admitted that the rent: wan dre, and that he had ajfewday3 ago agreed to- sign tjudgment for the amount now claimed, "in order to save his Worship trouble." The Magistrate thanked the defendant for his consideration, and gave judgment for the plaintiff in the full amount claimed, and costs.

Frederick G. Hawkins v. Henry Philips and G. 11. Walker.—Claim of L3O, reduced to L2O, the value of a boat called the " Queen,1' illegally detained and converted by the defendants to their own use. The plaintiff's case 'was, that the defendants took away his - boat without his authority, and detained it for two months, without paying any rent. After the stitnmous was served, the boat was returned to the place from whence it was taken ; but' the plaintiff refused to take delivery of it,: unless the defendants paid theeosts of the summons. The defendant Philips now said he was willing to "pay the costs and Li for the hire of the boat, waich was ac->; cepted by the plaintiff. " * ' ■■<■■■"■••> Henry Brooks v. James: Young.—Claim of L 2 16s 4d, as the. balance of an account for paint and glazing. materials supplied. The defendant's orders for the supply of the goods, were produced. 'The.defendant stated that he gave the .plaintiff authority to supply materials to :the value of -I*2s,'' to's man to' whonv'he^stiblet; ;ai contract, but the plaintiff supplied L 27 16s 4d worthuj of goo Is. He only stopped L 25 from the

mb»contractor'B money. The Magistrate could see no reason why, in the face of the defendant's orders for the whole of the goods supplied, he should raise .any possible defence to the action. The plain-. tiff should not buffer because the defendant did not make a .proper arrangement with his anb-contractor. Judgment for the plaintiff with costs. ■■■>' ~ ' : William Simms v.■ Alexander Hu.nter.-i— Claim of LI 15s Gd for loss of time arid expenses* incurred for-the attendance of the plaintiiF and one witness, at the Resident Magistrate's Court on the 10th iust., to answer a certain summons issued ,by the defendant's instructions; but afterwards withdrawn by h!s solicitor. The plaintifFscase was that he was summoned by the defendant to answer a charge of shooting a goat. He attended at the Court with a witness, and, at half-past twelve o'clock, he received a notice that the case was withdrawn. For the defence, a nonsuit point was raised, that the case in which.the plaintiff was summoned was a quasi criminal proceeding upou an information. It had not been shown that Dr Hunter's name was connected with the matter, or who laid the information, which might very possibly have been done by some members of the police force. The Magistrate said it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that the defendant toot the preliminary proceedings in laying the information. Under the provisions of the Fig and Poultry Nuisance Ordinance, the proceedings would be taken bj a police officery and not by a private individual. It had not been shown that the defendant was connected with the pioceedings in any way. Plaintiff nonsuited.

Alexander Hunter v. James Ford.— Claim of L2O for damages sustained by rea?pn of ; the defendant liaving wiifully and.maHcioiisly shot at and destroyed one goat, the property of the plaintiff. The case for the plaintiff was that one of his goats strayed, on to a piece of uncultivated land, the .property of William Simms, which was fenced by a threerail fence. The plaintiffs groom heard a gun fired, saw .the smoke of it; come Irom a window in .Mr Simms's house, and saw the goat drop at the moment... , The .plaintiff, in .company with his groom, went to the spot and found that the goat had just died of a gunshot wound. The ground appeared to them not to be under > .cultivation,: and- the fence was broken and dilapidated: Senior Sergeant .Grennau produced a notice which hod been left with him hy the defendant, in terms of the Pig and Poultry Nuisance Ordinance, to the effect that he. had destroyed a goat upon a piece of land belonging to Mr Simmg. Inspector Nim'on- stated that he saw the^goat lying dead where it was shot. The land did not appear to him to be under cultivation. The defendant admitted that he shot the goat, but he was authorised to do so by the owner of the land, Mr Simmg. The land where the goat waa shot had been under cultivation,'to his knowledge, for three years, and Jthere were in it a lar^e number of gooseberry bushes, which had been cropped down and spoiled by this goat and others. There were also strawberry beda and flowers in tbe ground. Mr Simms, on whose ground the goat Was shot, stated that the land had been under cultivation for four years, but (hat all his young plants had been destroyed by this goat and othcTjS, which were in'the habit of trespassing upon his latid. He authorised the defendant to shopt the goat The Magistrate was of opinion'that the weight' of evidence was in iavor of the view of the case taken by_ the s defendant, that he hai acted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the second section of the Pig and Poultry Nuisance Ordinance. Case dismissed.

Judgments by default were given in the following cases :—^-Wilson and Kidston v. Edward'Hankins, L 19," the amount of a

dishonored acceptance; Steven's'Trustees v. William M'Fee, L 3 18s 9d, for sundry quantities of timber,^ Same v. Miller, 1,6 7s 3d, for timber; Richard Edwards v. William Brenton, Ll 12sr 6d, balance of account for cartages A. BJ Wilson v. Hubert Cuattawrayi L 4 5s Id, for grocery goods ; Charles, Moore v. William, Mitchell, L 3 18s, for saddlery; Same "V. Thomas Stevens, L 3 8s 3d, for saddlery ; T. Robinson and Co. v. William Bisect, Ls'los, for a pair of harrows; Same v.'. Thomas Shoulders, Li 103, for a pair of harrows.

, Dismissed for non-appearance';—G. Wilson v. Anderson and Lain* eth, L 3 103' Id] 'Jolm.Barr v. Eliza Main, LI Os 4d ; Thomas Jackson' v. Frank Tritton, 17s; Henry Gulheridgev. Samuel Jackson, 16s.