RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1540, 3 August 1886, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Giraldine—Monday, Aua 2, 1886. '

[B«foreH. 0. S. Baddeley, Esq., ft. 11., and XI. W. Moore and A. Brisco, Esqs., J.P's.] DANCING) IN A PUBLIC-HOUSI.

Robert Taylor was charged with allow ing dancing in his public-house, the Geraldine Hotel, contrary to section 32 of the Licensing Act. Mr White appeared for the defendant. The Magistrate stated he had no power to deal with the case. It was a matter that should have been brought before the Licensing Committee, as where there was ho penalty specified for such offences the Court had no power to deal with it. Constable Willoughby put in the authority he had received from Inspector Broham to lay the information. Mr White explained that there had been no regular dancing. It was in thia way: A young daughter of Mr Taylor'i had obtained permission from her mother —Mr Taylor being in Chriatchurch—- to have a few friends at the house on the day in question, it being her birthday, and they had indulged in a quiet dance. The Bench considered that if the case came before the Licensing Committee, and they accepted the explanation, ii would go a long way to clear Mr Taylor. The case was adjourned till next Court day day. citil cask. A. Reid v. J. Priddle—Claim £lO. Mr White appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Aspioall for defendant. This was a claim for £lO, for wrongful conversion af a filly. Alexander Reid, the plaintiff, stated that he was a farmer living on the Waihi road. In 1812 he was the owner of an entire horse and a black mare, and that in the. season of 1883 the mare foaled a filly. He described J the filly as having a white spot on the forehead, as also on its nose, its hind fetlocks being whits. He had not seen the filly.f rom abou t the middle of December last, till July 10th, when he saw her being driven into Mr Mundell's stables in sshe charge of Robert Scott (MundeH's driver).. Had no doubt it was his filly. Had consulted a solicitor, and had a letter written (produced) to defendant, who then owned the horse, and who on receipt of the letter refused to give her up unless he was compelled to do so. Wsb quite positive it was hit filly when he saw h«r in Mundell's stables.

Had marie a close eximinnlioo when he saw her in the stable. Knew her by the marks lie bad described, and also because , lie l.nd docked her tail when abotit two x days old, which was a plan he with all his horses, 'JJ

To Mr Aspinall : Had lost two others at ths same time he lost her. The pad* dock he lost her from was securely fenced. Sometimes allowed horses to rein

in the riverbed, but none of them were running there when they were lost. Had sometimes lost horses out of his paddock since he had lost the filly. His boy had been sent to look for the ones lost ii

December, and had found two, but not the filly, Wnß ft subscriber to the Tejiuka Leader ; had subscribed "to it in May lawt. Had seen the advertisement (advertisement read) describing a stray horse somewhat similar to plaintiff's. Had never taken steps in it because the advertisement had stated the age at four year's, and his filly was only two. Had not passed Mr Coles' place frequently since seeing the advett'sement. Had not been to Timarn since. Had often made enquiries of people about the filly. Knsw Mr Taylor. Did not remember Taylor ever advising him to go to Coles' to see about the fi'ly. Never remembered Taylor saying that the description of the stray horse answered to his filly. Did , not remember having any conversation j. with Taylor about the advertisement. Slifl was not broken in when he lost ber. Valued her then at .£lO. She had been hurt in the breaking in. Had gHtlii'ed this from Scott. Had seen Coles oa tbe lGth July, for the pnrpore of finding ont' what he wanted for feed, sdvertislng,-T" etc. Coles had told him the filly had strayed into hia paddock. Plaintiff bad told him to make out his account, sod Coles had then said he (plaintiff) could have the balance of the price of the filly. This he had agreed to take upon Coles pressing him, as part payment, but had signified his intention to settle tbe matter in Court. He did not know how long the mare had been in Coles' paddock. Did not recollect passing Coles' from the tine she was lost till the time she was •old. Was quite certain she was not lost from the riverbed. attended Mr Wad worth'f safe. It was pointed out that in the first of the advertisements, which appeared three times in the Temuka Leadbr, the word "horse" appeared, which was subsequently changed to " mate." Plaintiff stated he only saw the one where the animal w»3 specified as a " horse." To the Bench: Had made enquiries after he had seen the filly at Mr Mundell's. . To Mr. White : The damage done to her leg seemed quite recent. sSamuel Gould, sworn, stated he farm6r living on Tripp's road, Had ae>&f i the dark brown mare at Mr Mundell's i stables. It was the one plaintiff had described. Had known her sinoe she was a foal. Had first seen her when about three days old at Raid's farm. Was quite sure the one at Mr Mundell's and the one at Reid's were the same. ->■ Talued her at about £lO. Was a fair Ju, judge of horses. Had been amongst them all his life. To Mr Aspinall: She was foaled in 1882. The last time he had seen her till seeing her in Mundell'3 was about eight , months ago. She was worth from £? tQ £8 then. Had often'been past Ccles', and had seen her there. f This was the pi sin tiff's cas>*. For the defence, Mr Aspinall called Richard Coles, who upon being sworn,

■ ■ JLI.L.- - "—" said: I am a farnvr. This mare got into ray paddock about Christmas. 1 turned her out severa* times, and as often found her in again. I determined to let her stop there for a few weeks to sue if anyone claimed her. As no owner cama I had her advertised. I and several others described the mare. It came out first aa a " horse," and then I hud it changed. It was my mist ike that it came out as a " horse." We could nut catch her at first, but finally did. I saw her sold. There were three or f«'ur bids. She brought £4 sa, which price I would not care to give for her now. Reid came to me and claimed the mare. I told him the expenses were £2 10s, and that he could have the bahnce. He said he had 'seen the advertisement. He said the mare was advertised in a wrong color, and that he had not applied because of that, and her age. I sent my boy with ] the money, but he refused to take it My paddock is securely fenced, but I could never keep her out. She was there ■bout 17 weeks. To Mr White: There were two othei stray horse : •' »t into my paddock duriny that time. I did not drive the other* out. The owner took them away. I have seen her jump the fences, which were about four feet high. I think sht jumped to get to the other horses. She was turned out a dozen times. She ws* turned out about six times in a week. I caught her for the sale by sanding her to a stockyard. To the Bench : The reason why I did not take her to the pound was because J did not know the l*w upon the subject. I thought I was doing right to take auu sell her. Henry Ooles, swore, deposed to the mare being in hia father's paddock, and to turning her oat several times; also i<> endeavoring to catch the mare, and to finally doing so. To Mr White: The reason we did not drive her to the pound was because I had 00 horse to do so. Jameß Priddle, defendant, sworn, said : 1 had often Been the mare in Mr Coles' paddock before I bought her. I attends Mr Wadswortb's sele, where she was ■old. I bid for her, and so did several others. 1 gave £4 sa, aDd was prepared to give £4 108, which [ considered Ik r full value. She was damaged in the W before I got her. 1 had her broken iu and paid £2 for it, and 7s 6d for medicine for her leg. I did not know who "lie belonged to. I did not see the advertisement. To the Bench : I knew she was a stray mare, but did not consider it was necessary to »se caulion in buying her. She wou'd be worth the money broken or unbroken. I think she was worth about £6, I considered I could make my money out of her even if 1 had to pay f <■■■ breaking ber in. J. Mundell, sworn, deposed to lag the filly. Considered her noitii «• tbe time sold £6, as she was nnbrokn , but could not say decidedly, as it «*• nearly dark. To Mr While : She was not advertised for sale at that. sale. She was simply brought up for sale. She did not seem very wild then. She is a fairly good mare. To the Bench : Six pounds was about her fair valm\ I doc't think I could have got more if she had been advertised. Mr Aspinall submitted that plaintiff had shown great negligence, and he was not justified to come into the Court and claim ber now. He had known that the advertisement answered to the description of his mare. He could not have missed seeing the advertisement, ns tbe Tbmuka ' LEADER was a paper which subscribers read completely through. It was a thoroughly farmers paper; they as a rule took it up and read it from end to end. He contended that the plaintiff should not recover more than £6 less tbe £4 5s paid. Mr Wbite contended that Mr Ccles had acted wrongly all through in not taking the mare to the pound ; also, in not advertising tbe mare for sale on the day she was eoH ; also, that she had been at the tail end of a sale when all-buyers who wanted horses bad gone. The price of the mare had, he contended, been proved as £lO. Mr Mundell and others had valued her at £ > when she was sold. Since then she had had £2 expended npon her in breaking in and she had also improved considerably by growth. This wae the case. The Court retired for a few minutes and then stated that they considered that grtat carelessness had been show nail round. Reid had been very lax, as had also been the buyer Priddle, while Coles had been the cause of tbe whole trooble. He had no excuse for not pounding the horse, and had acted very wrongfully. There were aeveral provisions under the Impounding Act t« meet any case, and Coles certainly acted very wropgfully in the course he had taken. Judgment for £6 and costs, solicitor's fee £1 Is, and one witness. W. Ellery v. D. Coffey—Claim £ll, being the rent of 3 acres of land at £2 per acre, £1 for ploughing, and the value of potatoes as per agreement. Mr White for plaintiff, and Dr Foster for defendant. The terms of the agreement, which had evidently not been prepared by a professional lawyer, ran as follows: •* The said William Ellery agrees to let the said land for the sum of £2 sterling per- sere, and fo receive four tons of potatoes as part of the rent." The Bench held that this was equivalent to stating that £6 was to be paid, and also four tonß of potatoi s. Dr Foster contended that such was rot tbe real meaning of the agreement, which was, he said, that the four tons of potatoes were to form part of the rent of £6. A long techinal discussion followed. The Bench, however, were unanimous in tbe opinion that according to the reading £6 was to be paid and 4 tons of potatoes was expressed, and they must itdhere to the reading whatever might be meant. . The . Benph pointed out that the parties by not going to a lawysr had put themselves to a deal of trouble, as the whole thing had been drawn up in a most unprofessional manner. After hearing the decision of tbe Bench, Mr White wished to increase the amount of the claim, but His Worship pointed out that as he had sued for £lO it could not be increased now. The question of the £1 for ploughing «yas next gppe into,. William Ellery : I am the plaintiff, Pefehdapt and myself entered into this agreement. Defendant told me that it whs prepared by Mr flardcustle. 1 have never received any potatoes, although I have applied for the four tons. They

could have been delivered at any time duting the last three months. On the last ocaasion he said that I should not get them, but should have the £6 if I lik<iit. Potatoes were then worth from £2 10s to £3 on the land. I deolined to iakoihe£6. I nsked him to show me I the agreement, and he said 1 should never see it. 1 did not ask him for a copy. IMendant o ves me £1 for ploughing. I guve him the option to Uke a piece of land that had been skins ploughed. This piece, three acres, was deeply ploughed, and he elected to take that which was deeply ploughed, as it was opposite his door, and he would allow me for the ploughing. From 6s to 7* is a fair price for such plonghiug. To Dr Foster: There was nobody present when tbo ngrreejient was made. I do not remember talking about the ploughing. I said nothing about ihrowiog the ploughing in, I could not say what ihe price of potatoes was when the agreement was made out. < Dr Foßter said that after the decision of the Bench he would call no evidence.

Judgment was accordingly given for the amount claimed. His Worship again pointed out that if the defendant meant * hat his counsel said, it had cost far more than it would hav« done to go to a pracieal man and have it done.

R. H. Pearpoint v. A. Finlayson— Claim £l3 8s lOd, Judgment summons. Defendant asked for time, and made an offer to pay 15s per month as he was not in a position to pay more. He was ordered to pay £1 per month, in default of one payment the whole amount to fall ■ iue, and failing payment to goto prison for six weeks. The Court then adjourned till tke 16th instant.