RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1980, 10 December 1889, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temetka—Monday, Dec. 9, 1889. [Before Captain C. A. Wray, E.M.] UNLAWFUL BESGUE. D. Angland was charged, on the information of Owen Connolly, with unlawfully rescuing 4 head of cattle from the public pound on the 26th

Nov, 1889. Mr Salmond appeared in support of the information.

Owen Connolly, poundkeeper, Temuka: On Nov. 26th impounded 4 head of defendant’s cattle at about a quarter to five o’clock. Left them in the pound at five o’clock. On returning found the cattle in defendant’s possession, who defied him to take them. The cattle were impounded from Brown’s road. He was a duly authorised poundkeeper. The E.M, asked if there was any intention to prove the informant’s appointment. Mr Salmond submitted there was no occasion to do so. The E.M, said that as far as he was concerned' it did

not matter. It was a point that might be raised by the defendant. Mr Salmond was prepared to furnish the evidence in a few minutes, but in reply to the Bench defendant said that he admitted informant’s powers to impound cattle, Ac. Eeplying to defendant, informant i denied that he had ever given defendant permission to remove cattle in his absence, or that he had pointed out the gate by which they could be removed; By the Bench: Had offered no special advantages to defendant or other people. Had driven cattle to his house and charged driving fees. When not paid had impounded them. Had asked for the fees the first occasion. Waited until the second occasion of pounding before he asked again. Defendant did not say he would not give the fees, only put him off. Had impounded the cattle several times. They had never been taken out before. To Defendant: Ton did not say “ That if I was entitled to the cattle I could take them/* To, the Bench: Had never given permission to anyone to take cattle in his absence.

By the Bench: Had agreed with other people to take the cattle to their homes. In such cases charged driving fees.

D. Angland, defendant: Had made an agreement for 20s a year that any of his cattle found on the roads should be returned to him and not driven to the pound. After the first occasion in which they had been impounded had complained te Connolly about being kept waiting. Connolly told him he need not do so, aa the sidegate was always unfastened. ” On the first occasion the cattle were im-> pounded given informant all the money : he had in his pocket, and subsequently paid the balance of the pound due. The cattle had been in twice alto-, gether. Had never beard of anyone else making an agreement with the poundkeeper. ByMrSalmond : Would swear that .he received permission to take the cattle. Did not think it inconsistent for Connolly to take the cattle to the pound and then let them go as inferred. In the previous action between hiai. self and Connolly he considered that the case was dismissed because he (witness) could not produce proper evidence of agreement.

Owen Connolly, recalled, produced the pound register. Defendant had paid him over 20s at various dates. After taking the cows had not to pass defendant’s gate on his way to the pound. Pound them on Christmas’ road, about miles from defendant’s and 6 miles from the pound. Positively denied the arrangement alleged to have been made by defendant. The E.M. could not believe defendant’s evidence as to the arrangement. It was inconsistent. The rescue was clearly proved, and he was liable to a fine of £SO. As there were not many cases of the kind he should not inflict the highest penalty, but would fine him £5, to cover coats of court. Solicitor’s fee was allowed. civil. CASES. Pendall v. Public Trustee—Claim £l4. Mr Cafchro for plaintiff, and Mr Salmond for defendant. > ■ This case had been adjourned from the previous meeting of the court to enable the evidence of plaintiff to be forwarded from Hokitika. The evidence not being yet to hand the case was ordered to be held over for a fortnight.

M. McAteer v. Mediae—Claim £2, cash lent.

Mr Salmond for plaintiff. ■ Judgment by default with coita. ' Henry Lee t. J, H. Jackson—Claim £3. Defendant put m a set-off of £2 Os 6d, and paid 19s 6d into court. Mr Salmond appeared for plainiiff and stated that the claim of £3 was admitted and also the set off of £2 Os 6d, hut the latter had been incurred under an agreement that it should go to obliterate a past debt, a debt of honor not recoverable in that court by ordinary process. Henry Lee, licensee of the Crown Hotel, Temuka, stated that on Sept. 28rd he had lent defendant £3 on the promise that it would be repaid in three days. About a fortnight afterwards defendant apologised for keeping him waiting, stating that customers he relied on had not paid him. On several other occasions conversations had ensued on the subject, defendant always promising to pay in a day or two. On 20th November told defendant he could not stand out of the meney any longer. He made several excuses. He promised to pay at the end of the weeit. The money was not paid and a summons was issued. When defendant borrowed the money he (defendant) never mentioned the' contra account, other money for refreshments, etc., was owing, in all to about £4. The contra account was for boots and repairs. The defendant was m the habit of repairing, etc,, for; plaintiff, and when there was any balance due to him plaintiff always paid it. In August told him how much his account amounted to. De- ’ fendant offered to make a pair of hoots and also suggested that he should make hoots for the children. The boots were supplied one pair for 16s/ and the other for 17s. One pair was made before the money wss borrowed, the other after. It was never under- 1 stood that the hoots were to b® supplied on credit.

By Defendant: You did not dispute the account in August nor say that instead of £3 only 16s was owing. By the Bench: Understood that the boots, etc. were to be allowed as a contra to the old account. Had not particularised the account of defendant but could do so. It had never been disputed. On one occasion had said he would give a cheque for it m, the morning. The last settlement took place about May and the account had run on since.

J, H. Jackson, bootmaker, Temuka: Had borrowed £3 from plaintiff. At the lime did not mention amount owed him by Lee, as the boots were not completed. Had frequently been in plaintiff’s house, sometimes very late, and had a small score there. Did not owe £4, but admitted owing 16s. Had repeatenly asked Lee to furnish him with an account. It was not true that the boots were ordered to wipe off an old score. Had kept an account of the score himself. By Mr Salmond: When he applied for the loan of £3 he did not think it necessary to ask for the amount of 26s then owing. On the 12th October he owed him £2 8s 6d. Did not mention it as he had other orders. It was not a fact that the idea of a contra account only entered his head!

after lie received a summons. The account of liquors he kept on a piece of paper, marking amounts down but not dates. Other people did it too, for it was well known how publicans worked. Would swear h© did not owe Mr Lee £4.

To the Bench : Denied that h© ©ver promised to allow th® boots as a set-off.

Constable Morton requested permission to ask a question referring to to the late hours at which defendant admitted being at Mr Lee’s hotel, but the Magistrate thought no good could come of it, The E.M. considered that as Mr Lee’s other claim was not before the Court. in a formal way it would he better to give judgment for £3 for the plaintiff, execution to be delayed for 14 days. This would give both parties an opportunity of bringing forward their respective claims. The Court then rose.