Pahiatua S.M. Court.

Pahiatua Herald, Volume II, Issue 164, 20 June 1894, Page 3

Pahiatua S.M. Court.

Monday, Jane 18th.

(Before Maiart W. W. McCardle and A. j Stewart, J’t.P.) ■the Court resumed at 2.80 p.m. Mr Toaawill continued kiia crossexamination of Mr Donald Fiaser, who states he did not remember leaving the knife on the shelf. Richards and witness used the tape on the Saturday, sure he put the tape back. Did not tell Avery that he had looked for the tape where last working. Valued the tape at one guinea. Had tea last Tuesday night with Mr Morrison, he was not aware he told Mr Morrison he was sorry they had proceeded with the case. Avery said he had a brother in Reliance. The whare had been broken into a week before. Duncan Fraser, laborer, Woodville, at present working in the Hall Special Settlement, was the next witness called for the prosecution. He stated he oould not swear to the knife produced. He was wet when he arrived at the whare from Woodville. By Constable Cooper : Was sure Avery went into the whare. Constable Cooper, on oath, gave evidence as to executing a search warrant at Steve Avery's, at Ballance, in company with the plaintiffs, who recognised the defendants. James Avery owned to having broken into the whare to procure food, not so much for himself as for hia young companion* who suffered much from cold and hunger. He took the whole blame on himself ; the knife produced was taken from the pocket of William Hirst. Fraser recognised the knife but would not swear to it. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Tosswill then proceeded to address the Bench, contending that there was no intent of stealing. The Bench dismissed the case. Tuesday, June 19th. (Before Mr T. Hutchison S.M.)

Cockburn ▼ Walker—Claim £l9 18s Id. Judgment for plaintiff by consent, with costs. Mr Smith for plaintiff, Mr Tosswill for defendant. J. Kennedy v Arthur Levick —Breach of Borough By-laws by driving horse and cart on the footpath. Defendant admitted the offence, but said the footpath looked like part of the road, and he was not aware it was for pedestrian traffic only.—Convicted and discharged on payment of the expenses the Borough Council had been put to. H. W. Briggs v A. Black—Defendant was charged on two informations with having stolen certain sums of money, the of the Pahiatua Newspaper Company. Defendant said that although e informations had been sworn on the 14th inst., he had only been served the day previous. He would therefore ask for an adjournment for a month. The S.M. said he could only remand a criminal case for eight days. Remanded by consent for seven days, then to be again remanded to 16th July.

Judgments. In the Stamp Duty cases, Police v Tosswill, and Police v Hewat, His Worship gave judgment as follows: “ The defendants are severally charged with making and receiving respectively an appraisement not stamped before the making of it. in breach of section 65 of the Stamp Act 1892. The document relied on as an appraisement is in form a letter by the defendant Hewat to the defendant Tosswill. It appears that it was intended to call the defendant Hewat. who is a carpenter, in a certain case to -peak to the value of certain buildings and that he had been requested by Mr Tosswill to supply to him for his own information as solicitor, for the party intending to call Hewat, a note of the evidence the witness would give. Hewat for some reason did not attend to give evidence, and by consent of the other side, the letter in question was put in. The contents of the letter were in no way binding on the other party to the action. Mr Hewat may possibly have been indiscreet in publishing his valuations as he did, and Mr Tosswill was probably indiscreet in tendering a letter intended for his own information to the Court to act upon, but I am of opinion that the document was never liable to stamp duty as an appraisement because within the exception named in the schedule to the Stamp Act relating to appraisoments as one not being obligatory, inter partes by agreement, or*operation of law.’’ Both cases would be dismissed. Cooper A Co v McCardle—Claim for balance of contract £l6 Os fid. Nonsuited without costs. Mr Haslett for plaintiff, Hr Smith for defendant. Brightmeyer v. Nestor—Claim for fencing done on defendant s dividing fence. Amount claimed, £2216*7d. Mr Haslett appeared for plaintiff and called the following witnesses Brightmeyer, Haskell, Novia, G. Co at all, G. Woods and Carl Neilson, and the defendant gave evidence for the Defence. On the Court resuming both parties agreed to Mr S. Bolton being appointed arbitrator, so the case waa adjourned for one month. I>. Kelly v. Bickering—Claim for wagea at 10s per day for 37 days. Judgment for £3 13a.

N. P. Olsen v. M. Scanlon—Claim of J £l3 6a for work done. Mr Tosswill for ; plaintiff, and Mr Haslett for defendant, j Case adjourned for a month. J. Stewart v. Walker—Claim for wages and share in partnership. Mr Smith for I plaintiff and Mr Tosawtll for defendant, i On the advice of his solicitor the plaintiff withdrew hia claim in the partnership aceount. David < ockburn, storekeeper, Makuri, gave evidence as to a date. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed and coats, £1 IBt. G. A. Fairbrother v. Anderson—Claim forgeoda supplied, £2 7s lid. Mr Tosswill appeared for pluintiff. Verdict for amount claimed and costs. 9s. G. A. Fairbrother v. J. R. Graham Claim £6 17s lid. Mr Smith for the defence contended that the Court had no juriadia mia Ifce aa a. Mr Toaawill argued otherwise. The S.M. decided to hear the case. Mr Stevens gave evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, as also did Mr Armstrong. This case bore oil an exchange of goods. J. R. Graham, defendant, gave evidence. He deposed that Steve.is owed him I'H 4s Id when he filed. After the contra there was XT 6m 5d owing to him. He received n dividend of 5s 3d, being Is in the X* on XI 6sfid. Judgment reserved.

G. A. Fairbrother v. Jessop-Claim £2 3* Id. Judgment for plaintiff with costs. Mr Toaawill for plaintiff. G. A. Fairbrother v. Neilson Claim £6 lfia 3d. Adjourned. G. \. Fairbrother v. Wagner—Claim £lB 10s. Mr Tosswill for plaintiff. Judgment reserved. BREACH or GAMB LAW!. Police v. Baucke—Charged with having shot at a lien pheasant with intent to kill same. George Alexander Williams deposed that he remembered the Ist May. Heard a shot and saw a hen pheasant rise. Saw defendant jnat after and he »sid the bird W soul of range. Ceorga Harold S.nitl l, solicitor, deposed that he was shooting on the Ist May.

He heard a ehot fired, looked in the direotion of accused end saw two hen pheasants rise. Asked accused what luck and he said the bird was out of range. Baucke was about 350yds from them, and the bird would be about 100yds from Baucke.

William Wilson McCardle, jnr., said he took out a lieense because Messrs Smith snd Williams threatened to prosecute him for haring fired at a pheasant. Charles Norton, Postmaster, deposed that he issued a license to Baucke after the lßt May. Mr Haslett contended that there was no evidence of intent to kill pheasants. William Wakeruan deposed that he went on the morning of tile Ist May with Baucke pigeon shooting. The information waa dismissed. Wednesday, June 20.

F. Kroon, F. Cummings, J. Jones, and H. Eskridge were charged with intent to intimidate and breaking and entering the house of Mr Tucker of Makuri.

Mr G. H. Smith appeared for the defence.

David Taylor deposed that he was at Makuri on the night of the 6th. He heard a aoise of something breaking, arose and found all hands up ; looked down stairs and saw Kroon. All the conversation that took place was, one of the crowd said, 41 look at the mummies.” He was frightened, not knowing where the matter would end.

Arthur Tuckey, carrier, deposed that he was at Makuri on the night of the 6th. The accused left the hotel at dosing up time, but returned some time after. He was in bed. The landlady and the man in charge were up. They left and returned again and kicked the door in. He went down stairs to have a “ cut ” at Maloney. The language was not choice and there was a row.

By the S.M. : Did not have a “ cut ** at Maloney ; persuaded him to go out side. By the S.M.: The old lady and her daughters were much alarmed. By Constable Cooper: Was sure Maloney was inside. They would be in the house about 20 minutes. Did not hear a proposal to break the bar in. At this stage the Police applied for a remand for 8 days which was granted. Bail was granted accused in £2O and one surety of £lO each. Judgments. The following judgment was given in the case G. A. Fairbrother, as assignee, v J. R. Graham—The plaintiff sues as the Assignee of the book debts of one Stevens, a bankrupt assigned to him by the Deputy Official Assignee in bankruptcy. The deed of assignment purports to assign all the debts due to the bankrupt at the date of the bankruptcy ; and the debt sued on, unquestionably, comes within the operative words of the deed. For the defence it is alleged, and as I find, proved that at the date of the bankruptcy there were mutual debts between the bankrupt and the defendant; and that before the assignment, these were set off by the defendant one against the other, leaving cn the balance of account a sum of £1 6s 5d ia favour of the defendant, for which he tendered his proof of debt. The Deputy Official Assignee was bound to examine this proof and the grounds of it, and I must assume, did so. Fie accepted the proof, and must therefore have satisfied himself that the defendant’s debt had been rightly set off. The defendant has since been paid one dividend on his accepted proof. This being so, I conclude that at the date of the assignment there was no debt due from the defendant which the Deputy Official Assignee could assign. Judgment was given for defendant with costs.

Mr Smith appeared for the defence and Mr Tosswill for plaintiff’.