RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

Waipawa Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 779, 21 May 1885, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

Waipawa, Wednesday, May 20. (Before Captain Preece, R.M) Thos. Telford was charged on the information of Mr Geo. Hunter with driving 100 sheep over the Poi ingahau sheep run, on the 3rd day of May ; tho necessary notice not having been given to the owners of the property. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr Lewis, Sheep luspeclor for Hawke’s Bay stated that the present action had been brought under Clause 49, of the She *p Art, in consequence of information he had received. George Hunter, owner of the Porangahau sheep run, knew the defendant, who had on March 3rd driven about 100 sheep across liis property without having piveu the required notice. Dclondant’s notice had only reached him on the evening of March 3rd, whereas the sheep had crossed on tho afternoon of the Hume day. No locality was defined in tho notice, and defendant passed through the property without the owner’s knowledge or permission. Thomas Telford, defendant, admitted having driven the sheep, but believed lie had kept strictly to tbe highway. He explained that a mob of cattle hud been travelling besides the sheep, and he had spared one of his men to go with the cuttle, who was to have served the notice on the plaintiff. The man was a day late, and hence the trouble. Mr Hunter stated that defendant had only been brought up as an example, as several drovers had lately omitted giving notice.

The case was dismissed, defendant being cautioned ; his worship stating that the Act was a most important one, and the penalties would in future be inflicted. Tho Rev J. C. Eccles was charged on the information of Antonio Ammundsen, for trespassing on the railway line. Defendant pleaded not guilty, his duties with the people necessitating his visiting tho residents along the railway line. Antonio Ammundsen deposed to the Rev J. C. Eccles having been seen on the line. It was a part of the railway station but a place where the public had no right to walk. Mr Eccles had no questions to ask ; and he did not wish to say anything more than that about ten of his parishioners lived along the line, and that there was no mode of access to them without making ; use of the railway line. Ilia Worship would inflect a light penalty of la nnd costs. In reply to Mr Eccles His Worship said permission must he obtained from tho railway department before tho rev. gentleman could make use of the line.

Olemott v. Lycett.—For assault. Mr Guy for defendant. Mr Loughnan for the plaintiff. The case was adjourned on the application of defendant, for hearing at Ormondvillo on Juno 10th, defendant to bear costs of adjournment, viz., £2 8s Gd. F. J. Popplewell, school-master, Kaikora, was charged with having unlawfully assaulted Hector Dillon, a child of Mr Alfred Dillon, Ivaikora. The defendant, who appeared, submitted that as the summons was not propelly signed, the case could not he proceeded with. His worship said tho case being a summary one, tbe summons could be rectified at once and served on defendant. But on defendant stating that lie had not called his witnesses because he believed the summons to be invalid, his worship adjourned the case until June 3rd. 11 is worship signed the summons himself to avoid any chance of a further informality. James Duncan, Neil Duncan, and Angus Campbell, three lads, residents iu Kaikora, were charged by the police with having feloniously broken into the store of Angus McLennan, Kaikora, and taken the following articles, viz. : two tins salmon, one tin lobster, one tin jam, one carving knife, one sheath knife, two loaves bread, one pound butter, one box elastic bauds, live riding whips, and one brush, value £2 Gs, John McGeorgo Mason was called to give evidence, but did not appear. A letter was also read from A. McLennan, stating lie had to attend in Napier, liis Worship said the witnesses should have attended, and lie would issue warrants for their apprehension at once. Mr Gu}', who appeared for the prisoners, asked that the

latter who were mere lads of about the ages of 14, 10, and 7, might be released J on bail, but his Worship ordered them to remain in tho custody of the police, until tho case was heard. Merry lees v. Peters. Claim £l3 3s lid. Mr Guy for plaintiff. As the defendant seemed to be making an attempt to pay, liis worship adjourned the cuso for two months, until July Ist. Merry lees v. Edwards ; claim £9 7s. Mr Guy for plaintiff. Ordered to pay forthwith or iu default 28 days imprisonment. Reed v. Bell ; claim £4 3s Gd. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs £1 ss. Sterry v. Hori Niu Nia ; judgment summons, £G Gs. Mr Guy for plaintiff. Mr Kelly interpreted. Defendant thought ho would bo able to pay tho money by Juno 3rd ; and the case was adjourned accordingly. Another case. Ward v. the same defendant, was similarly adjourned. Sterry v. lleta Matua ; judgment summons, £4 lls. Mr Guy for plaintiff. Defendant ordered to pay forthwith or bo imprisoned for 14 days in Napier gaol. Neal r. Close v. John Duncan.—Claim, £29 138. Mr Loughnan for plaintiffs. Mr Guy for defendant. Mr Loughnan said the money hod been owing over a year, and judgment had been already given. Mr Guy pointed out that the date of Court had not been filled in on the judgment summons, so the case could not be proceeded with. He whs sorry to tako advantage of such an omission, but defendant was not able to pay just at present. Case adjourned till June 3rd. The criminal case against the three lads at Kaikora was then proceeded with. John McGeorge Mason, storekeeper, in the employment of Angus McLennan, Kaikora, whs sworn. He knew tho lads, and remembered finding the back door of the store open on the morning of May sth, although it had been securely locked by him on the previous evening. He also found that a pane of glass had been broken, and thought the window-sash hud been lifted. lie then missed several articles. Witness then identified several articles produced in Court lie was present when the boy Campbell had told Mr McLennun that ho and some other hoys had taken the tilings away early in tho morning. The prisoner had described how he nnd tho other boys had got in through the window nnd gone out through the hack door. Witness had made a note of what the boy had said before him and Mr McLennan. Cross-examined by Mr Guy : Witness could not swear to the tins, hut knew the whips by private marks, lie bad been with McLennan since January l«t. He remembered some other things having been taken away from the store since that time. His Worship then asked John Duncan, father of one of the prisoners, whether he desired that liis child should be tried summarily, to which Mr Duncan replied in the affirmative. Angus Campbell expressed a

Robert Kennedy was then sworn, lie knew the accused boys. He remembered going to the old Grand Stand, Kaikora, with another Duncan, to look for his brother, the prisoner. They found him in one of tho rooms, and also saw a sheath knife, some half-.--nipty salmon tins, and a biiish. Witness knew some of the articles again, when produced in Court. He had handed the knife and sheath to the constable. He afterwards saw Campbell and Duncan upon a horse riding along the road. Witness then came hack to the Grand Stand, and the articles were gone. Aiterwards Kuvv Campbell and Duncan near a creek, and a piece of bread was on the bank. Tlio prisoners had refused to sav where the food had come from, nnd would not say where they had slept during the night. Cross examined by Mr Guy : Witness had not seen the prisoners the day before May sth. Witness had been brought betor the Court himself, in company with Duncan. Had not been much in company of prisoners since ; had not been thrashed himself when lie w.ih fined by the court before; had gone to the grand stand to help George Duncan to find his brother. Had not put the prisoners up to any notions of breaking panes of windows. Alfred Pilcher gave evidence of a situi-

Constable Brosnahnn deposed that on Saturday hist he had visited the old grand stand, Kaikora, and after making search had found the brush produced in court ; the tins were lying on the grass, and the knife and sheath had been handed him by the witness Kennedy. The carving knifo nnd three of the whips had been handed him by McLennan, and two whips were given him by another person. Had arrested the prisoners on Tuesday. J. McG. Mason, recalled, stated that bread was sold at tlie store.

The prisoners, James Duncan and Campball, pleaded guilty ; Niels Duncan not guilty. Mr Guy, summing up, said that one of the culprits had already been fined for a similar offence, but no chastisement had been ordered, consequently the punishment was not realised. He hoped that this would tell in favor of the lads ; they were a good deal led by bigger hoys in the place, and had now got into this trouble. Mr W. White gave some very favorable evidence as to the character of the hoys, against which lie hud never known anything wrong. Mr Guy also stated that Mr Dillon had had spoken favourably of the previous character of tho lads.

The charge against Niel Duncan was withdrawn, and his worship, after lecturing the culprit, discharged him. The Court decided that that no fine would he inflicted, that was no punishment. To send boys of this age to gaol would be harmful to them. There was however, a lock-up in Waipawa where the boys could be imprisoned by themselves. The prisoners were convicted, and were sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment in Waipawa police-station ; each boy to receive six strokes by a police-constable, in presence of a Justice of the Peace, the parents to have the privilege of being present if they chose. His worship then cautioned the lads, und they were taken out of Court.

Kelly v. Melia, claim £ll 3s Gd. Mr Louglman for plaintiff, Mr Guy for defendant. 1 ho defence was that plaintiff had been permitted to live with defendant, as lie was hard up, and that he was expected to do off and on work, being paid lor any extra labor. Mr Kelly interpreted. Edward Kelly, laborer, Wanslead, was sworn. He had fenced lor the native at £l6 per mile; and was afterwards taken on cutting firewood, at 7s per cord. He

knocked off this woik to do harvesting ; it being agreed that ho should receive 9s per day. Plaintiff had done other work as well, and had asked for the money but couldn’t get it. Mr Guy cross-examined at some length, after which thedofendant was sworn. lie had made a payment of £5 as a present ; he did not consider it binding himself to pay wages. The agreement was that pluintiff should work without wages. It was customary for pakelias to work for natives at that puli, without payment. There was one working there nowon those terms, lie denied having admitted his liability to plaintiff. Plaintiff was nonsuited, with solicitor’s fee £1 Is.

T. Ellingham v. C. Ramlose ; claim £3 5s ihl. Mr Loughnun for defendant. The defence was that the charges were excessive ; £ls had already been paid towards settling the claim.

The plaintiff sworn, stated tlie account wus for carting grass seed, &c , from Makarctu to Wuipawa. The charge was Is per bag from the end of the Hush to Waipawa, but some of it had to he carted from insido the bush, for which be was to receive 3d per bag more. Plaintiff was also to have a full load, otherwise bo would charge £1 a day. A. Harrison deposed that he had declined to undertake Kamlose's carting, but had recommended him to employ Kllinghain. lie had spoken to Ellinghnm on Kamlose’s authority, and had arranged that the charge should he Is per bag.

G. Hamlose was then sworn. He considered Is and costs a fair price from Onga Onga. No agreement was made about full louds, and a charge of £1 per day.

Cross - examined by plaintiff : witness thought three horses could fetch out 50 bags of grass seed from the back. He could get goods carted at the rate of £1 a day. Ho had paid 2s a cwt. on small lots. lie didn’t remember making any agreements whatever. Mr Loiighnan then summed up, isking that certain reductions might be made. Tho Court made reductions amounting to £l. and gjjve judgment for plaintiff for £1 15s 9d, and costs £1 I Os.

The case linker w Smith.—Claim £3l SBfCri, was adjourned on the application of the plaintiff* Mouatt v M. B. McKenzie.—Claim £8 34s 6d. Mr Loiighnan for defendant, Mr Guy tfor plaintiff. Tho claim was for wages, the dispute having arisen through a misunderstanding in the rate of wages to be paid, a considerable amount of evidence was taken, witness being exaimined and cross exmiiincd nt great length.

Hid Worship considered plaintiff had no right to leave his work without permission, and for this and other reasons, the claim would be reduced to £5 Os (» I. Judgment, was given for plaintiff accordingly, with costs of Court only. 13s.

Somll v Chicken.—Claim £3 10s (>d, for photographs. Mr Loughii m for plaintiff, Mr Guy for defendant. The defence was that the articles ware not good and that defendant had taken the photos back. Plaintiff then deposed that lie had been asked 1»y Mr J. Chi< ken, bandmaster of the Waipnwa Brass Hand, to take a photograph of the hi nd. The first arrangement win for a Sunday, but this did not come

off. Then they agreed to have the picture taken »ii the Waipukuraii race course. Plaintiff went there, and took his dry plate ;>j paratns with him especially to take them. Alter some delay, tho band got leady to be taken, just as the light was go rig off ; but lie took them, Mr Chicken saying “ Never mind whether they an* good or not, wo will take some.’* He then told them ho would send a proof, and if they didn’t like it, ho would make no charge. He subsequently showed them the proof and an order for 24 dozen was given through Mr Wilson. Mr Cbh ken said they were very nice, as also did several of tho members. Ho piloted tho photos, and handod them to Mr Chicken in tho band room, asking him to collect tho money. 110 afterwards asked Mr Chicken for tho money, and \\ ts told there was “ a lot of grumbling about the pictures.” So lie had taken the pictures away, saying that Mr Chicken could have them when he paid the money. They had seen the proof, and had ordered the pictures to be taken from it.

By Mr Guy: 1 told them if they did not I l<e tho proof, they need not pay for it. ho process is a special one ; and tho prin ;g was done at Napier. Tho photos wen eft with Mr Chicken for four days. 1 w ( at lvaikora, during that time ; 1 called upon Chicken several times and

couldn’t lind him. The blotch on the eye was only the blemish they complained of. 1 took tho eye out and put another one in. i think it is a very nice picture. (Mr Guy. The nose is gone in this one your Worship. Laughter.) I have been an nrtist 10 years in the good old country. Have been in New Zealand about 18 or 19 mouths. I refused to reduce my price to 2a n piece. I wanted £3 for the dozen. Wilson, carpenter, Waipnwa, sworn, d< sod that Sorrell had sent him a proof of !.e photos, to shew Mr Chicken, and

g. an order for the photos. Mr Chicken s;» *2 4 dozen would do; so lie wrote to th plaintiff, saying that Mr Chicken ordt 1 that lot. Subsequently, at the reqc : of “ Lightning,” ho asked Chicken lor a decided answer. The reply he got w. that he, Chicken, was only the mouthpi. •of the others, and could not give a d . nled answer.

i y Mr Guy : Mr Chicken did not order the photos, on the condition that the spot • .no of the band men’s cyoH would be t '.ken away. It was understood that they \\ © going to be cleaner pictures.

J 11. Cragg, photographer, now travol--1 ■ in Waipuwa, deposed to having had ]:; yeajs’ experience in the business. Had ! surd evidence of plaintiff re taking j,, ‘ures in bad light. Knew that under * me circumstances it was impossible to take a good photograph. Some of the ; inures were better than tho proof. On t i. whole, for an out of door view, it was u very passable picture. By Mr Guy : If I were taking a picture and the light were bud, I should tell the people so. If I saw a Haw in a print 1 don’t suppose I should turn it out. My business is quite a different one to Mr Sorrell's. (Mr Guy here appealed to the witness on tho “eye” question). Witness : The pictures are touched up ; that is sometimes done. (Another picture, ulv* taken by Sorrell, was put in, witness considering it a very good picture) A pood deal of evidence of a technical nature was given. Mr Guy applied for a nonsuit, on the / . .mds that Sorrell had undertaken the v >rk as a professional man, and should Lave used bis judgment and not have taken

the pictures in a had light. Mr Guy quoted the law on this point. Witnesses for the defence were then called.

Joseph Chicken, watchmaker, Wnipawa, and master to the Wuipawa Band, was sworn. He attributed the delay on the race-course to the band having to complete their programme of tunes. Immediately they were free, they came to Sorrell, who was taking photos under the “lightning” process. He said he had been waiting for them all day, and now they would have to wait for him. Witness then described how a proof had been submitted, ho undertaking to buy dozen, provided they were better than the proof. When the pictures came lie found that tho black spot over the left eye had been taken away, leaving a white spot. When defendant complained, Sorrell said lie would take the photos hack again ; he would rather burn them than have trouble. Ho took tho pictures away and did not give witness a chance of making an offer of 2s each for tho pictures, which the band had intended doing. Witness fully intended making this offer had “ Lightning” been calm. P. Moroney, barman, stated he had hoard Sorrell say that if the pictures did’nt suit, he would’nt charge for them. It. Cochrane and W. Jones, bandsmen, identified their liknosses in the picture. Ilis Worship said the plaintiff was wrong in tho first, instance in taking the pictures in bad light. Then the defendant had made <i contract on the proof, which would have been good had not plaintiff threatened to destroy the pictures, thus breaking it. Plaintiff wus nonsuited with costs of court, and solicitor’s fee £1 Is. The court then rose.