R.M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Independent, Volume I, Issue 80, 28 November 1885, Page 2

R.M. COURT, GISBORNE.

(Before Jas. Booth, Esq., 8.M.) FRIDAY. Disorderly Conduct. Wirirnu Meta was brought up charged with disorderly conduct, likely to cause a breach of the peace. He was discharged with a caution, Defaulting Ratepayers. A number of defaulting ratepayers were summonsed at the instance of the County Council Clerk, but were either adjourned or settled out of Court. Trimmer & Co. v, W. Williams. Claim Floss for goods supplied and delivered. Judgment for the full amount and costs. Sanders v. Dinan. Claim £2O damages. Mr Ward appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Robinson for the defence. Mr Robinson disputed the jurisdiction of the Court on account of the claim referring to land title. No notice had been served on his client, and the claim exceeded £2O therefore he claimed a nonsuit. Mr Ward differed, and produced a copy of the Telephone newspaper, setting forth the notice of the transfer of the property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was in lawful possession, and the defendant came and ousted his client without right or title. Mr Robertson submitted that his friend had substantially admitted his (the speakers) contention. The Court decided to go on with the case, and Mr Sanders was called, and deposed to the agreement to purchase. Mr Robinson objected to the agreement on the grounds of there being no consideration mentioned. The Court again over-ruled the objection, and the plaintiff stated that he had entered into possession. He had remained in possession up to the time Mr Dinan had ousted him, and prevented him attending to his cattle.

By Mr Robinson : Had been in possession of the land up to the 13th of November. Had left the house on the land over three months prior to the above date. The place had been broken into. Had bolted the back door before leaving. To the best of his knowledge he had bolted the door. Three parts of the cattle were his own, and the others were Mr Bruces. Had 20 of his own there. Had paid all the expenses of the transfer, and that was all the consideration given. Had not signed any paper or document making over his interest in the land to Mr Bruce. Mr Bruce gave him a house to live in for nothing. Had a little money by him when he left the land in dispute. By the Court : Was prevented from milking the cows on account of the defendant coming with a big stick. Had told an old woman to milk the cows for him. This was the damage he sustained. Had taken the cows away three or four days after receiving the notice. Mr F. H. Featon was District Land Officer. The transfer of the land in dispute was still undecided. Mr Sanders had been in possession for some time. The telegram (produced) was not definite. There are further payments to be made. Before the transaction was completed, it would require the signatures of both interested parties. His instructions were to obtain the money, and then witness the signatures, and hand over the Crown Grant. Was aware that Dinan had written asking that his interest be transferred to Sanders. It was usual to only acknowledge the original selector until the transfer of payments were all made. The Court ruled that the plaintiff had been proved to be in legal possession. Mr Robinson contended that the plaintiff should have sought a remedy under clause 88 of the Justices of the Peace Act.

D. Dinan : On the 13th of November took possession of the land, and found the back door of the house open. Took possession of the land because Mr Sanders left the occupation, and broke his agreement. E. O’Dwyer : Knew the agreement ' (produced), and it was in his writing. A long dispute here took place as to the conditions of the agreement, and the Court refused to allow the question to be put. Mr Bruce was here called, but the Court refused to allow him to be sworn until the defendant granted expenses. Mr Bruce deposed that the plaintiff had not assigned any of his interest to himself (the witness). Had cattle on the land, and supposed he would have to pay. [Another warm dispute again took place between the opposing Council and the Court, as to the mode of questioning.] Had lent the plaintiff a house to five in until the roads were better. The Court had no doubt ast to the right of Sanders to the occupation, and the only question for the Court to consider was the amount of damages. This would be for Lio, and costs L 3 18s. J. O’Brien v. S. M. Wilson. Claim I-9i2s6d for wages due, and damages in lieu of notice. J. O’Brien : Had been in Mr Wilson’s employ three weeks and five days. There was an agreement signed between himself and Mr Wilson for 25s per week and rations. Had received notice to leave on the 17th. Had never received one farthing of wages, and had faithfully performed all his duties. Had asked the reason for being discharged, and Mr Wilson said he was not in the habit of giving his servants any reason. The day before Mr Wilson left for Napier he complimented witness on having taken so much money in the billiard room, and remarked that “ he did not know how he (witness) wrung it out of them.” Mr Wilson told him not leave the commercial room, as it paid best. While Mr Wilson was away Mrs Wilson ordered him to go up to the Club Room. He at first refused, but cvcntualy had to go. When he returned Mr Ward offered him is, and witness asked for the money for the pool. After taking some money for Friday and Saturday had refused to give it up until Mr Wilson’s return. They sent for a policeman, but the policeman said “ he (witness) knows his business as well as anybody in the place.” On Mr Wilson’s return he told him of the affair, and

Mr Wilson upheld his action. Afterwardi he sent for him (witness) and asked him to make out his bill. Witness refused to make out any bill. By Mr Ward : Mr Wilson told him to look after the room, not leave it, and to close up punctual on Saturday night. Mrs Wilson was in charge while Mr Wilson was away. On discharging him Mr Wilson never offered either money or cheque in payment of wages Had offered to take a month’s wages in payment of all claim, as he wished to get to Napier by the boat. ' Had told Mr Ward that as there was a dispute he would account for the money to Mr Wilson when he returned. . Had gone to Mr Dickson’s on one occasion to see a friend. W. Williamson was employed at the Albion Club Hotel. Had no fault to find with O’Brien as assistant waiter. By Mr Ward : O'Brien was away from the table one day at lunch time., Did not hear the dispute, but Mrs Wilson told him. The plaintiff’s dress was hardly the thing nt times. Mr S. M. Wilson was the proprietor of the Albion Club Hotel. The plaintiff had refused to obey orders, and he had told the plaintiff that he must leave, and offered him his wages to the amount paid into Court. The plaintiff admitted that he had disobeyed Mrs Wilson’s orders.

By Mr Robertson : Had the plaintiff on the 17th of The disobedience to Mi's Wilson took place on the sth and 6th of November. Mustered all hands together at the time in the dining room. Told plaintiff to go on Wednesday before all hands. Had asked the plaintiff why he had not obeyed Mrs Wilson while he (witness) was absent, and told him to quit the employ at once. J. Ward had heard the statement that Mr Wilson had made, and it was all correct. The plaintiff had refused to obey Mrs Wilson’s orders, and said he would not do so, “ not even Mother Eve.” The plaintiff had refused to give up the money. On a previous occasion plaintiff had insulted Mrs Wilson most grossly. Mr Wilson called all the servants into the dining room and gave plaintiff his discharge. The plaintiff refused to take his money I when offered by Mr Wilson. By Mr Robinson : had not seen Mr Wilson with the money in his hand. Would swear that Mr Wilson gave the prisoner notice on the Wednesday following Mr Wilson’s return from Napier. The plaintiff' was only playing at billiards with the stableman, and refused to leave the game. The Court pointed out that the plaintiff had been engaged playing billiards with another servant, and had refused to obey the lawful commands of Mrs Wilson and the manager, and so could not claim a month’s wages. Judgment would be for the amount paid into Court and costs 21s against defendant. Mr Robertson remarked that it was no wonder that Poverty Bay got a bad name.