RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

West Coast Times, Issue 353, 9 November 1866, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

(Before G. G. FitzGerald, Esq., R.M.) Thursday. November 8. Drunkenness. — John M'Nalty and Alexander M'Lareu were charged with this offence, and respectively fined 55., or twenty-four hours imprisonment. Larceny. — Thomas Connor was charged with larceny from a dwelling, of the value of L3O, and, on the application of Inspector Broluun, he was discharged. Lunacy — Isabella Johnston was charged with being of unsound mind, and was remanded for medical examination. Indecency. — James Gilded was charged with this offence, and the same being clearly proved, wa 1 * fined Ll, in default of payment forty-tight hours imprisonment. Vagrancy. — Mary Jaue Smith was charged with liaving no lawful visible means of support. She was remanded till the 10th instant. CIVIL CASES. Ilawkes and Sirouts v. Stanley. — This was an action on account of damage done from improper stowage to some carrots and bran shipped in Sea Shell. Mr Button for plaintiffs, and Mr Rees for defendant. J. G. Hawkes, one of the plaintiffs, was called, and deposed that he- was a member of the firm of Hawkes ! and Strouts. He recollected the arrival at Hokitika of the bill of lading produced. There was nothing in the bill of lading authorising any deviation in the voyage. The goods were shipped from Clmstchurch to Hokitika. The carrots were stowed away wherever they could be jammed in. The proper way to stow carrots was either on the deck or top of cargo. Witness would Bay that the Sea Shell was about sis weeks on her voyage. The usual time was from five to fourteen days. When the consignment reached Hokitika it was totally unsaleable. The bran, if in good order, would in Hokitika be worth 4s a bushel. The carrots and hrau were sold at the risk of whom it may concern. The loss on the carrots was L 37 13s ; on the bran, L 55 9s Id. He had given the defendant notice of his intention to Jjold a ttirvey upon the good*. The

survey had been held. By Mr Itees — He had «een the goods on board the cutter Sea Shell. Had inspected them before they had been hmded. He was certain that the carrots had b^en spoiled by having been wedged in and the protracted nature of the voyage. He could not say of his own knowledge whether Ibe carrots, when shipped, were in good condition or not ; he believed that they were. Edward Houghtou was then called, and being sworn, deposed that he was a merchant residing in Hokitika. He had seen the document produced. The signature was his. He had held the, survey in conjunction with Mr W. Fisher. It was holden on behalf of Messrs M«ir and Staite. He had seen some carrots on the Sea Shell. They were wedged in wherever space permitted. The carrots and the bran were very much damaged. The remainder of the cargo appeared to be in good order. The average passage from Canterbury to Hokitika was from twelve to fourteen days. He considered six weeks an unusually long passage. James Aloir, being called and aworn, stated that he was a merchant residing in Hokitika. He remembered some carrots and bran having ai rived in the Sea Shell. They had been ordered for the firm of Moir and Staite, indented through plaintiffs. Witness had been on board the Sea Shell, and had inspected the carrots. They, ' were in the main hold, under chuff and bran, a few bags being on the the top. They were vi-ry much decayed. Witness had seen them discharged; four-fifths weie completely rotten, the other fifth partially. He had given notice to plaintiffs that he purposed having .a survey upon same. They were sold at the risk of " whom it mit>ht concern." He had seen defendant at his> office. Witness and his partner were present when defendant had expressed his sorrow at the damage done to the goods. Witness had made nt>tes of the conversation. (Mr Moir then read seveial admissions made by defendant during the conversation, and which hud by him been reduced to writing.) V» illiam- Fisher was then called, and corroborated the testimony of the witness Houghton. J A. Carey was called, and deposed that he was a merchant, residing in Hokitika. He had ijnade a survey of the bran, and had fouud that it was very much damaged, from wunt of proper care in the bt-iwage. This closed the plaintiffs' case. Mr Rees then addressed the Court in a very able speech ; and his Worship reserved j .dgment till Saturday next. Dougherty & Co. v. Murphy. — Mr Button applied that this case might be adjourned for one week, and his Worship granted the application. Marks v. Solomon. — This was an action to recover rent alleged to bu due for use and occHputiou of the Cnfe de Paris. Mr South for plamiiff, and Mr Harvey for defendant. Mr South stated the case for the plaintiff, and called Hyam Marks, who being swoin, depj^ed that he he was. the plaintiff in the present case. He had let • the Cafe de Paris to the defendant at a rental of L 7 per week; there was L 56 now due to him in respect of rent. The memorandum produced was in his handwriting. He had been called upon by defendant's solicitor to produce certain accounts, he bad* clone so. He last saw defendant on the subject of this action about a month ago, wheu defendant had admitted his liability, and had expressed the wish that the rent might be reduced. By Mr Harvey — He had received other moneys from defendant, but they were in respect ot the current account, and had nothing to do with the money due for rent. He had gi anted a lease to defendant. Mr Hai'vey then asked whether defendant had not executed a bill of sale to him ? Mr South objected to the question, and after argument, his Worship 1 uled that it could not be put. Cross-examination contiuued — Plaintiff could not undertake to say the exact amount of money due by defendant co him for goods sold and delivered. Witness had rendered the account produced. The rent and goods were included in the one account. On September the 3rd, he had given credit for money paid for goods. At the expiration of the lease plaintiff had paid to defendant L 450 by" cash and goods. He held three dishonored bills of defendant, amountiug in the whole 10 L 550 ; the bills had been given for cash advanced. L 550 was due by defendant to plaintiff on the 9th October, 1 865. Witness had received an acceptance for LlO5, it had n- ver been paid. The bum of L 450 was not due to him on the 22nd July. He had given credit for every penny paid by defendant to him. 'lhere was no credit in the account for a payment made on the 9th October. This sum had not been charged in the general account, as it was for rent. He could not see the sum of two pounds credited in the account. He could not see a credit on the 24th March, 1866, for the sum of L2O. There was no credit in the account for a f ui ther L2O paid on the Ist of May. The receipt produced was in his handwriting. The only reason that he could give for these items not being credited was owing to their iiaving been paid on account of rent ; the sum of L2B paid in June was for rent. Jn the 21st September he had received a cheque for L2B, that had been given for goods. He did not think that he had tupplied any more goods since the account had been furnished. There was now due to him the sum of Ll9O, including rental, up to the 22nd October. To Mr South—Defendant had called upon him, representing that he wanted his assistance to euable him to go into business. Witness' partner and self had agreed to lend him some money. They purchased the Cafe in point of fact for Mr Solomon, that is to say, the Cafe was to become his (witness') property upon his repaying the amount advanced ; the time fixed for repayment was January last. Defendant had not paid up at the time specified, and plaintiff had been in receipt of a rental from him from that date. W. W. Gollin, being sworn, deposed that lie was accountant to plaintiff. On the 2nd of Sept., the sum of L2B was due for rent. If this amount had been paid to plaintiff he would have known it. The receipt produced was not in his handwriting. 'By Mr Harvey — He recollected the 24th of September last. He had asked defendant for a cheque for the amount. It was on account of goods. He was certain it was not for rent. He had been out of Court all the morning. He had not heard the evidence of the plaintiff. He had never had any conversation with plaintiff as to the nature of thetestimony he was to give. Witness was in the habit of receiving the rent monthly from the defendant, that is when it was paid. When he receiveu the last cheque from defendant, did not tell him whether it was for renc or goods. To Mr South— When he furnished the defendant with the general account he had not expressed any dissatisfaction therewitn, nor offered any objection to the items. Mr Harvey addressed the Court at considera ble length for the defendant, moving for nonsuit on two grounds. Mr South replieo, wheu his Worship ruled that the iletence must be proceeded with. He would, "however, reserve the nonsuit points. The defendant, Phineas Solomon, waß thy

called, and being sworn, deposed that he was the proprietor of the Cafe de Paris. It was worth L2OOO. He knew the plaintiff. He had applied to him for an advance, and had obtained same. He had also got credit for goods. The plaintiff had demanded the Cafe as security for repayment. Witness and plaintiff proce> ded to Mr Oakes, solicitor, who advised that the property, should be passed in the manner it had. Witness had executed the bill of sale produced ; the plaintiff the lease. Mr Marks stated when the deed was executed, that it was merely \ done as a matter of form. Plaintiff offered him LI2OO for the Cafe about four weeks ago. He did not owe the plaintiff L 450 in July la9t. He had given the acceptances as accommodation bills. There was no money dae to plaintiff when he received the bills. On September 24th he had paid L2B on account of rent. By Mr South — He could not say to what extent he was indebted to plaintiff. There was a balance due to plaintiff in September last. He had not given plaintiff other than accommodation bills. He had executed the lease produced merely us .a matter of form. Witn ss might have offered the Cafe to plaintiff for LI2OO. Plaintiff had offered to st 11 it for L 450. To Mr Harvey — There was no necessity for his giving the bills unless he liked. Louis Davies, clerk to Mr Oakes, was then called, and related the conversation that hud occurred on 'he execution of the documents. This closed the case, and, counsel having addressed the Court, his Worship reserved judgment till Monday next. M'Farlane v. French. — This case was adjourned till Saturday next. Bank of New Z aland v. O'Loughlin. — Judgment, l>y consent, for amount claimed and co*ts. The remainder of the cases set down for to-day are to be heard 011 Thursday next. The Court then adjourned till Saturday, the 10th in.st.

9