DISTRICT COURT.—Yesterday.

Thames Advertiser, Volume VIII, Issue 2124, 18 August 1875, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.—Yesterday.

I (Before i'. J), Fjjnios, Esq., District Judge).' Thomas Spenceh v. Fbbdk. Benneij. —This was an action for £100 damages for injury by rooting out and removing certain trees from tlio Parawai Gardens. This case was struck out at the commencement of tho proceedings by consent of counsel in pursuance of an arrangement made in the Resident Magistrate's Court. Fbedebiok Bennett y. Wm, Heney Oassin.—This was-a claim for £100 damages for false jmprisonment. £10 had been paid into Court.—Mr. Macdonald for plain tiff,'Mr'Tyler and Mr Brassey for the defendant. This was a jury case,' in'" which' 1 tho twelve were summoned. Four were challenged on behalf of the plaintiff and four on behalf of defendant. Tho following gentlemen then constituted the jury :-Wm, Brown, James Baird, John Cullen, and John Corbett, and were duly sworn. James Baird was olected foreman. —Mr Macdonald addressed the jury in opening the case, explaining the nature of the proceedings. He said that the imprisonment was not disput-d nor was its unjustifiable character denied, inasmuch as the defendant acting under very good advice had paid £10 into Court as compensation for the injury sustained. The action arose out of a proceeding in the Police Court, in which Bennett was charged with feloniously digging up and removing certain trees from the Parawai Gardens. When the action was called defendant's counsel [admitted that the defendant Oassin had acted hastily, that there was no felonious intent, although his civil rights had been invaded by tho plaintiff, and the action was withdrawn. Mr Macdonald. proceeded to show that a partnership existed between Oassin and Bennett and the latter was to receive a weekly payment. For some reason this was withheld for some time, and Cassin assumed sole proprietor. Bennett then to show his right to tho partnership assets, removed the trees, acting under legal advice.- Whether he was light or wrong was a matter which was not before the jury, but if Cassin's civil 'rights were invaded he had ample remedy in the civil Courts. Mr Macdonald then called Frederick Bennett, who deposed: About 3 or 4 in the morning of the Queen's Birthday, witness, acting under advice, took the trees. He knew the defendant,, and also Detective Brennan. He saw them on the night of the 24th, after he had gone to bed. go was arreited and taken to the- lcck-up. Cassin was present with the constable at the time of the arrest. He was locked up in the police cells, Shortland, and brought before the magistrate next morning. No evidence was offerod then. The case was remanded, and he was held to bail on the request of Mr Bu'len, Inspector of Police. Next day Mr Brassey appeared for the prosecution, and stated that no evidence would be offered. Witness was a married man with a family, who resided at the place where' he was arrested. At tho time of his arrest he told tho constable and Cassin that he had taken the tr< js under advice. Witness retained a solicitor to defend him, and paid him £3 3s. It was the first lime ho was arrested, tho bread and water was not nice, and ho could find no soft boards in the floor of the cells! He was searched, and his tobacco and knife and other things taken from him, and he WBs locked up in an apartment which was far from cheerful. —Oross-esamined: He took over 100 trees, mostly (fruit trees, which he was chargcd with stealing. Tliey were not old enough to t be fruit-bearing. One of them had one apple tho previous year. He removed the trees because he had a right. He was aparlner of Mr 'Oassin, under agreement in writing. The document produced .is the agreement under which he claimed the right to remove tho trees. (The agreement was read by tho clerk.) He removed the trees becau.e Mr Cassin did not. conduct the business, but made a fool of it. The same agreement was produced in Auckland on the trial of Mr .Spencer for forcible entry. Tho removal of the trees did them no harm. It retards their growth

lo a trifling extent, but throw tbom into fruit-bearing sooner. .Ho claimed an equal right with Mr Cassin; in fact, he claimed a greater right to tho trees than Mr Cassin. Cassin never asked witness to pay his share of the losses. Ho applied for £3719s through his solicitor, whioh witness did notpiy.—(Tho report of tho Polico Court Court case, as it appeared in tho Thames Advebtissb, was admitted by both counsels as being tho correct version of what was said on the occasion, and was recived as evidence.) Witness, after boing discharged, made no application to Mr Cassin for compensation or damages.—Re examined: The trees were taken back to the Parawai Gardons and replanted. For taking these trees he was sued by Mr Sponcer, who claimed lo bo damaged by tho taking of the trees, That ease was withdrawn.—Witness was then examined by tho Judge as.to the injuries to his body and mind which he>ustained. —Bobert Constabulary officer in charge of this district, deposed that he remembered Bennett being arrested Before that arrest ho met Mr Brassoy and Mr Cassin. Immediately before that Cassin had reported to 'him the robbery of trees, value £25, from tho Parawai Gardens, and told him Mr Brassey would toll him tho particulars. It was for that purpose he wont to Mr Brassey, who said, in Cassin's hearing, that Bennett was suspectod of the robbery. During further inquiry into tho matter, something was said about an agreement between Bennett and Cas-fn, and when witness heard of this ho hesitated to take any steps in the matter until Mr Brassey told him a folony had been committed, and hethenconsentedthatifCassingaveßonnett into custody, ho would have him arrested. Ho was arrested and brought before the magistrate and charged on an information which had been sworn to. Cassin demurred to-signing tho information, but ultimately ho did sign it, and upon that information Bennett was oharged.— Detective Brennan deposed that acting on instructions he accompanied Cassin to search for Bennett. Mr Cassia gavo liirn into custody for stealing a quantity of fruit trees and shrubs from the Parnwai Gardens, and witness took him into custody because of that. If Mr Cassin had not given him into custody he would not have taken him. Theso were my instructions trom Mi; Sullen.—Cross-examined: When Bennett was arrested he said he had a right to the trees, being a partner. Cassin said he had no right to them, and asked why he had taken them at night.— This closed plaintiff's case.—Mr Tyler addressed the Court and jury to show that the money paid into Court was amply sufficient damages. Ho admitted that the .imprisonment was unjustifiable, and paid £10 into Court. Ho thon. addressed himself to mitigation of damages, and called William Henry Cassin, the defondant, deposed that he admitted in tho ple&dings that ho caused tho plaintiff to be arrested on the accusation referred to, on the advico of Mr Brassey, for removing a quantity of fruit trees which had been planted out as an orchard to remain pormanont, Ho believed that the trees had been wrongfully removod. Ho did not know whether a felony had boon committed, but he acted on the advico of Mr Brassey, and believed, when told by him, that a felony had been committed, and that was his solo reason for giving him into custody. About 118 fruit trees and a large quantity of others—shrubs—had beon removed. Ho did not know they wore to bo removed by Bennott, and never consentod to-ik. They were takan away in tho night to jSuortlaiid. •Ho valued them at fiO 'or '£50.'-. ';Th6 ; deeds under , whioh Cassin becamo'..lessee of tho Parawai' Gardens wero put in • evidence. Tho lessor reentered, and determined witness's estate in tho gardens for non-payment of rent. He lost a large amouut of money in tho transaction. Tho re-entry was made on tho day the trees were brought back. At that time Bennett was indebted to witness in an amount for loss. They went over tho books together, and Bennett admitted that ho could see it. Witness furnished him with a proper account,— There were no other witnesses, and tho Court adjourned for dinner.—After the adjournment Mr Tyler addressed the Court and jury, <He pointed out that thero_ was no evidence that tho plaintiff sustained injury to his credit by tho false imprisonment, nor was there evidence before them that he incurred any expense in securing his liberation, and they had only to take into consideration the amount of damage which ho sustained in mind or body. He pointed out that tho defendant was not responsible for the remand of tho case, and tho question for them to con. sider was whether £10 was not sufficient to compensate him for the imprisonment from 10 o'clock at night to 10 o'clock next morning, during which time ho could not carry on his ordinary business. He further argued that there was not oven evidenco to sustain that amount of damage. Mr Tyler then proceeded to address himself to the jury on tho evidence, and dwelt on tho circumstances under which tho arrest took place, and the fact that an apology had been mado in the most publio manner in the Court. —Mr Macdonald replied, and in doing so stated that evon if convinced that tho verdict would bo only for £10, and that that would be swallowed up in costs, he would, acting on his own feelings, have recommended his client to proceed with tho case with tho view of showing to tho world that there was no reason for sneaking out of the affair for a paltry consideration, being afraid lo take it into Court, and leaving a slur on his character, to be thrown into the faces of his children afterwards. He assured the jury that thoio remarks did not proceed from the belief that £10 was sufficient. Ho then addressed himself to the evidence and to Mr Tyler's remarks in an able and telling speech.—His Worship then addressed tho jury briefly. He said the question was whether £10 was too much or too little. Ho explained the chief points of the case in a summary manner. He, in' conclusion, cautioned the jury against allowing a Court of law to be mado an instrument of vindictivoness. The chargo throughout was strongly in favour of the defendant.—The jury retired, and after about ten minutes returned into Court with a verdict of £50 damages for the plaintiff, The costs were fixed at £112s.

John Buchanan v. James Mcßobebtß. —This was a claim for £98 93 'Id, balance of account due,—Mr Miller appeared for plaintiff, and said that it had been arranged, in order lo save plaintiff from coming from Auckland, that defend: nt should confess judgment. Ho would ask, as defendant had not appeared, to have the case adjourned until the next Courtday.—The adjournment was granted. BANKRUPTCY. There were some cases in bankruptcy set down for bearing. His Honor appealed to Mr Lodge, clerk of tho Auckland Court, whether he was obliged to hear bankrupey cases, and on being informal that.it was part of the duties of District his Honor said the fact was that he had never read tho Bank-

ruptey Act, and never meant to if ho could help it. Thoy wero changcd cvory year, and thero was another now ono now being framed. His appointment was only temporary until a permanent appointment would bo mado by tho Government, and it would bo unfair to requiro him to read thoso long Ms. It was then arranged by tho counsel to havo tho casos postponed. * 1?e Kiohabd Onvon.—Tho liabilities woro £427 12s, and tho assets £18116s Bd, leaving a deficiency of £21516s 4d.— This was adjourned until next Courtday. _ lis Thomas Henby FmauE.—Tho liabilities wero £93 8s 3d, aud tho assets £10,—This caso was also ordered to stand over until next Court-day, Be D. Tookey and John Webb.—Mr Tyler mado an^ application in this caso for an order of adjudication, and tho process being explained to his Honor, tho order was granted. The Court then rose.