RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1699, 16 February 1888, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tbmuxa—-Wednesday, Feb. 15,1888.

[Before D. Inwood, J. Guild, and J. Talbot, Eaqs., J.P.’s. CHIMNEY ON PIEE.

James Ogilvie pleaded guilty to having his chimney on fire. David Henry, Captain of the Fire Brigade, stated that he saw the fire and called out the Fire Brigade. C. J. Rayner said he went to Ogilvie and told him his chimney was on fire, and he treated it lightly.

Constable Morton said when he went to the house Ogilvie only complained of making a mess of the house, and did not seem to care. He was in the workshop. The Court said the full penalty was £5, but they would only fine him £l, as a caution to him that he must not treat such matters with indifference in future. ALLEGED ILLEGAL POSSESSION. Alexander Martin was charged with having in his possession a quantity of powder from the ship Hudson. Mr Hay appeared for the accused, and said the information now was different from the warrant on which the accused was arrested. The accused was arrested for having in his possession a quantity of powder for which he was not able to account, and now|the charge had been altered to having obtained it from the ship Hudson.

Constable Morton stated that he heard accused was in possession of a quantity of gunpowder, and having heard that somebody had lost powder he laid an information and obtained a search warrant. Found the powder now before the Court—7 11b tins and 2 -i-lb tins—in his house. He said it came from the Hudson, and that he got it on the beach. To Mr Hay; The Hudson was wrecked in Nov., 1885. He said he got the powder one month after the wreck. This was in his own house. Have no instructions from the Collector of Customs or the consignees to prosecute. Constable Graham stated that he assisted Constable Morton to search the accused’s premises. The accused said he got the powder from the Hudson. Don’t remember how long after the wreck he said he got it. He said he thought it no harm. To Mr Hay: He said he got it in a box on the beach.

Mr Hay said if this was the only evidence the case must break down. There was no evidence to show where it came from except that the accused said they came from the Hudson, and no Court would convict on such evidence. Besides, no prosecution could be taken after the lapse of six months. He quoted section 45 of the Justices of the Peace Act to show that no summary proceedings should be taken after the lapse of six months. The Court said the police had failed^ i< pve their case, and it was accord' ingly dismissed. CIVIL CASES. Q-. McS. Gentlemun v. Robert Waugh—Claim £2 Os 9d. Mr Raymond for plaintiff. Judgment for the amount claimed and costs. Q-. McS. G-entlemun v. Hugo Friedlander—Claim £2.

Mr Raymond appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Aspinall for defendant, who applied for an adjournment. Mr Raymond objected to the adjournment, on the ground that there were no good reason given for asking for it.

The adjournment was granted, on the defendant paying expenses. (>. MeS. Gentleman v. J. O’Connor —Claim £2 4s.

Mr Raymond appeared for the plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed and costs.

N. Money v. R. Turpin—Claim £2. —Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs.

F. Franks v. H. Rogers—Claim £1 17s.

Mr Frants, junr., appeared for the plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed and costs.

G. McS. Gentlemun v. F. Franks— Claim £l3 19s 4d.

Mr Raymond appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Franks, junr., for the defendant.

The plaintiff stated that he was assignee of the book debts in the estate of J. Siegert, and the amount was due.

Julius Siegert: Became bankrupt in August j 1887. The defendant was then indebted to the amount claimed. He produced his book to show the amount was due. Franks admitted the amount, but said he had a larger contra account against it. He paid into Court £2 15s, and put m a set-off.

To Mr Franks: In July, 1886, there was £8 5a due to Mr Franks. In October, 1886, Mr Franks told me not to give any goods to anyone in his name without his written order. Goods had since been supplied to Mr Franks. [Mr Franks here put in accounts to show that on November 13th, 1886, the account was settled, Mr Franks paying 3s 9d.j I do not remember having been told by Mr Gaze about the order. [Document put in showing the wheat was threshed at 3d per bushel, for which a charge of 3£d was made.]

To Mr Raymond: Told my men not to supply without a written order. The kegs (£3 ss) have been entered in pencil in the book (produced), and omitted in the accounts.

Charles Fauvel, draper, employed in Siegert’« shop, said Mr Siegert told witness not to supply any goods to anyone in Mr Franks’s name without Mr Franks’ order. The items charged in the account were all got before the order was given in November, 1886. All the goods after that bad been paid for.

Mr Franks, junr., raised an objection to the effect that under the Property Consolidation Act it was necessary for an assignee to give debtor notice of the assignment of the property. The plaintiff had given no notice to the defendant of the assignment of the debt to him. Besides, the goods were charged in Siegert and Fauvel’s estate while it was tne debts due to Siegert’s estate that had been assigned to the plaintiff. Mr Raymond replied that a bankruptcy assignment of debts differed from an ordinary assignment of property, and held that there was nothing in Mr Franks’s objection. With regard to his second obection, it was nullified by the defendant’s own action by admitting his own liability in paying part of the money into Court/ The Court disallowed the objections and the case proceeded. F. Franks said that on July 19th £8 5s was due to him, and it was settled. On receiving the account dated September 30th he went to Siegert and told him not to charge any goods to him without his written order. Received accounts afterwards in which goods were charged which he had not ordered and went to Siegert, and when ho repudiated his former instructions Mr Gaze said, “ Yes, Mr Franks gave the order.” This would correspond with Fauvel’s statement about the time he received the order to stop credit to his (Franks’s) family. Offered to settle with the defendant for the threshing at 3d per bushel* and paid that into Court. He was examined at great length by Mr Raymond. A. W. Gaze recollected Mr Franks saying that no goods were to be supplied without a written order. Recollected Mr Franks afterwards disputing some accounts, and 3s 9d passing through the books. To Mr Raymond: Recollect goods being charged to Mr Franks after the order was given. Counsel on both sides having addressed the Court, F. Franks was recalled who said that some of his sons were away from him “ baohelorising ” together. Told the members of his family that their credit was stopped. The Court gave jugment for the amount paid into Court, without costs. G. McS. Gentlemun y. D. Hoare—£B 4s4d.

Mr Raymond appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Aspinall for defendant. Mr Raymond said the defendant had put in a set-off to the amount of £3 14s 6d, and paid £5 2s lOd into Court. The set-off was disputed. Denis Hoare stated that he was work, ing for Mr Clark when all SiegerPs men left the threshing machine. Mr Siegert asked witness would he help him, and witness said “ Yes, at Is per hour.” Had two boys and myself. Mr Raymond said he was not prepared with his witnesses and would allow the set-off. He asked for Judgment for amount paid into Court*

Judgment for the amount paid into Court About a dozen more cases in which G. McS. Gentlemum as the assignee of Siegert’s book debts was plaintiff were settled out of Court, or judgment - was confessed in them. The Court then adjourned.