RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 579, 2 August 1867, Page 6

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before G. G. FitzGerald, Esq., R.M.) Thubsdat, August 1. Decxk and Incapable. — Robert, Woods was fined 10s, with the alternative of twentyfour hours' imprisonment with hard labor. Lakcent. — Johu Brown wa3 charged with stealing an Inverness cape, a puir of shepherd plaid trousers, and other weaving apparel, the property of Mr Hanson. The property, valued in nil at L 8 10s, was inside the shop behind the door. The prisoner admitted having stolen the property (on Monday last), and pleaded as an excuse that he was' under the influenco of liquor. His Worship remanded the prisoner till to-morrow for sentence. CIVIL CASES. l*attou and Co. v. Hokitika and Ross Tramway Co. — Mr Button for the plaintiff's ;- Mr Havvey for the- defendants. Plaintiffs sought. to recover the sum of L 6 1145, being balance of account on a contract made by plaintiffs with Mr Holies Kuox, late manager to tho Tramway Co. It wa3 admitted that tho work (altering the guage of the tramway) had been performed according to contract, and in a most satisfactory manner. Mr Knox wab called, and deposed to having entered into the contract with the defendant by order of the Board of Directors. The work had been completed in a most satisfactory manner, and ho had given'n certificate to that effect. In cross-examination Mr Knox stated that at a meeting of directors, at which he was present, a resolution to the effect that tho company should bo voluntarily wound up, and that ho (Mr Knox) should bo appointed liquidator, hud been passed. He had sent notices to tho Government "Gazettes," as well as to the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies. He had also informed tho plaintiffs of tho fact that the company was in course of liquidation. Action had been taken at one tinio against Mr Knox for the same debt, and previous to its withdrawal he wrofo to tlie plaintiffs, informing them that the company was being wound up, of his appointment as liquidator, and that ho witness stood in the i same light as an official assignee to an insolvent estalo, and could not be sned^— Mr Harvey applied for a nonsuit. He contended that the company was a joint stock company, registered under the Joint Stock Companies' Act 1860. It had been shown that tho plaintiffs were aware that the company was iv course of liquidation, and could not be sued. Mr Harvey here quoted section 67 and several other clauses of the Joint Stock Companies' Act in support of the view he took of the case — that the windirig-up of the company commenced from tho passing of the resolution. Mr Harvey further contended that under clause 85, supposing plaintiffs obtained a judgment, execution could not issue. — Mr Button argued, that as clause 107 provided that tho corporate state of tho company and all its corporate powers continued until the affairs of the company were wound up, tho company could sue and bo sued until its death. Ho read clause 87 of tho Act differently to his friend Mr Harvey, which the action ho would take in tho ovent of his obtaining a judgment would show. His worship stated thatclause 107, which proviclesfor the voluntary winding up of Companies registered under tbe Act contemplates that the Company is solvent. He I had carefully looked over the Act, and could eeo nothing th- 1 prevents tho Company from being sued. He would over rule the nonsuit point. Mr Harvoy again urged that the judgment could not be enforced by execution. That so soon as they commenced winding up the Company, tho property thereof became vested in the liquidator. Mr Button contended that the argument brought forward by

his friend did tlot iipjily in this case. Clause 85 contemplates a winding up by the Court. The execution is only void as against official liquidators, and that power is not given till tbo petition is filed. Tbe Resident Magistrate observed that ho had no doubt that the plaintiffs were entitled to a judgment. He was not called upon to make any remarks as to the course ot execution, but in this particular case he had no hesitation in saying that execution might issue so far as the assets of the Company would allow. Judgment was accordiugly given for the amount. Mr Harvey gave notice of appeal.

Veith v. Boyd Thompson.— }£: Suttbu for the plaintiff; 21? ilarvey for the defendant. *. liuntiff sought to recover the sura of L3O, being L 25, the value of certain goods, the property of the plaintiff detained by tbe defendant, and L 5 damages, arising out of the detention of the goods. Mr Button being unable to conclude his case, applied for an adjournment. The application was opposed by Mr Harvey, and Mr Button elected to take a nonsuit, with costs.

Lorence v. Keeeh. — Mr Button for tbe plaintiff; Mr Harvey for the defendant. The plaintiff sought to recover from the defendant the sum of LBl 10s, being partly claimed as damages arising from an assault committed by plaintiff on defendant, and partly for property destroyed. It appeared that tue plaintiff, a newspaper vendor, proceeded to tbe Lamplough diggings on Saturday, the 271 b instant, and called at the defendant's store. A dispute aroso between them. Dependant refused to buy apaper off plaintiff, as lie (plaintiff) did not deliver them regularly, and ordered him out of the store. Plaintiff demanded pay for nowspapcrs already supplied, when defendant took hold of him and thrust him out. The evidence at this point was very conk'adictory, tho plaintiff and his witnesses alleging that the defendant struck the first blow, and vice versa. It was evident that the plaintiff had suffered bevcrely, for both his eyes were discolored, and his face bore traces of other injuries. After plaintiff had been thrust out of the sloio, blows were exchanged in the road, till ultimately both foil into a drain ; plaintiff falling underneath. . 'efendant admitted that when they got out of the drain he assaulted plaintiff, and that he struck n Tiolin which plaintiff waj parrying, whether he had put it up to guard ofi' the blow or not, ho could not say. Tho violiu was producod in Court, and appeared to have been materially damaged by coming into contact with defendant's fist. Mr Horn, tho owner of tbo instrument, who had entrusted it te his, plaintiff's care, for conveyance to Hokitika, was called and stated that ho valued it at L2O. Witnesses wero called to support each view of the subject. Defendant's wituesßOS dcpoßed that tho plaintiff threw down somo newspapers he was carrying as well as the violin, and challenged the defondaut to fight ; # that he afterwards used the violiu as a weapon, with which he belabored the defendant. One of defendant's witnesses stated that after tho parties had got out of tho drain he " saw the violin strike up against defendant's fist." His Worship stated that it was evident an assault, and rather a brutal assault, had been committed, and gavo judgment for L3S 10s, being LlO for damage tho violin had sustaiucd (the violin to be given to plaintiff), L 6 10s, the value of six dozen newspapers rendered useless ; L 2, plaintiff's fare to Hokitika; and L2O.as damages. The Court was then adjourned till eleven o'clock on the following day.