RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 661, 6 November 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

♦ (Before G. G. FitzGerald, Esq., E.M.) Tuesday, November 5. Disorderly Conduct. — Richard Tiny was fined LI, or in default of payment to be imprisoned for eight-aud-forty hours. Labceny. — Frederick Symonds was charged with, stealing a jacket of the value of LI, the property of Margaret Thompson. — Elizabeth Harbinson was charged, together with Symonds, with receiving the property knowing it to have been stolen. — Margaret Thomson deposed that she was a general servant in the employment of Godhard, of the European Hotel. On the 4th instant, at about two o'clock p.m., witness hung a jacket out to dry, at the back of the brewery. At about four o'clock she missed it. Witness next saw thojacket in Dotective Brown's possession. It is worth about 20s, She gave 355. for it when new. Witness does not know either of the prisoners. — Detective Brown deposed that between six aud seven o'clock on tho evening of the 4th instant he received information that some property had been stolen from the European Hotel. Ho proceeded to a cottage where tho two prisoners reside together, onthebeaeh. He asked the female prisoner where tho cloak was that Symonds had brought there. At first she deniod all knowledge of it, but on witness' threatening to search the house, she produced it from underneath the mattress of her bed. He afterwards arrested Ike-prisoner Symonds atfche Carriers' Arms, Beach street. He said he found tho jacket on the tramway. Prisoner Synionds on being asked by the bench if he wished to make any statement again, repeated that he found the jacket on the tramway. The Inspector of Police stated that there was a second charge against the two prisoners of stealing a mustard pot, of the value of Bs, and as the one case was in some way connected with the other, perhaps his worship woxdd hear the evidence in support of the second charge, before giving his decision on the first. Mrs Godhard being sworn, deposed that she saw the prisoner in the bar of the European Hotel, on the evening of the 4th inst. She afterwards saw him leave the back premises with a black parcel under his arm. At tea time the mustard pot was missed from the cruet stand. Witness identified the mustard pot produced. Detective Browne deposed that he found the mustard pot in question, on the table in the prisoner's house. The female said Synionds brought it there. Symonds told witness he found it on the tramway with the cloak. The prisoners declined to make any statement. His worship remanded them till the following day. Assault. — Thomas S. Downes, master of the brigantine Percy, was charged on the information of John Holley, with assaulting him on the 4th hist. The defendant failed to appear, and a warrant was ordered to issue for his arrest. Hill and Beck v. Dan. — A claim for LlO 5s 3d, for meat. Mr Button for defendant. Adjourned till the following day. Homan v. M'Carthy — This case was adjourned from the 29th ult., in order to allow Mr South, defendant's counsel, to call witnesses who could disprove the statement made by the plaintiffs' witnesses a3 to the state his client was in when he rode through Stafford Town.— John M'Carthy deposed that he was not riding the horse when the accident occurred. He was leading it by the bridle. The horse shyed as he was crossing a bridge and fell. With the assisttauee of two other man he succeeded in getting him up again. — Cross-examined by Mr Button — He offered Homan the saddle the last day they were at the Court He told him before that he would return it as soon as it was repaired. He said he would not take it back, because it was not worth anything now, — By tho Court : The statement made by plaintiff's witness as to his being drunk and galloping through Stafford Town on plaintifi'a horse, is not true. — John Casey stated that he called into see the horse at M'Carthy 's request, three days after the accident. Both M'Carthy and Homan were present. Witness took a cursory glance at the horse. It was slightly stiff in one of its hind legs. It was chafed on. the wether and hocks. It looked as if it had fallen. Witness saw Homan riding it two or three days afterwards, and it was then all right. The horse was not materially injured. — Thomas Heron deposed that he was a publican residing at Stafford Town. He saw McCarthy there on the 23th September. McCarthy came to him to borrow a saddle. He said he had met with an accident with his horse. He was perfectly sober. — Patrick M'Guinness deposed that he saw M'Carthy at Stafford Town on the 20th September. He saw him come into town, ! ana he also saw him leave. He was sober on both occasions. When he left Stafford Town, he was leading his horse by the bridle. — Cross-examined by Mr Button : He put his horse up on Saturday. He took it away again at about eleven o'clock on Sunday, to go to the Waimea ; he returned from the Wainwa ■ between two and three, and he left for Hokitika between three and four o'clock. Matthew Ryan stated that he was employed at the West Coast Brewery. He remembered M'Carthy coming home on a Sunday about ten o'clock". That was about the 20th September. Ho had no horse with him when witness saw him. Ho was the saaie as he is now. — Hogan deposed that ho was a saddler; he repaired a saddle (produced) for M'Carthy ; it was worth about L 2. — Cross-examined by Mr Button — Supposmg it to be new it would be worth about L 7. — Re-exammed by Mr South — It is about eight or nine years old. — Mr South said that, as to the charge of drunkenness, it had fallen to tho ground. Tho saddle was evidently worthless. The plaintiff was attempting to obtain a new saddle for an old one. Ho considered the claim a " trumped-up" one.— Mr Button contended that no evidence had been, adduced by the defendant to connect the saddle produced in Court with the one plaintiff sent out with

the horse. He did not believe it was the one. The witnesses called had merely stated that they did not see M'Carthy galloping through Stafford Town. One of defendant's witnesses — Casey — had stated that the horse was lame for three days. He contended that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount sued for, L 9 15s. His Worship gave judgment for L 3 15s (being 30s for horse hire and L 2 5s allowance at the rate of 16s per day for the three days the horse was unable to work), and the saddle to be given up to the plaintiff. The Cobpobation Hates. _ _ clatton t. elein. This was an action to recover the sum of Ll7 10s brought by the Collector of the Hokitika Municipal Council against Mr J. P. Klein for rates alleged to be due and payable by him. Mr Harvey, (town solicitor), for plaintiff. Mr Rees for defendant. Peter Clayton deposed that he was rate collector for the Corporation. He produced the assessment book for the town of Hokitika. _ Mr Klein's name appeared on it as owing rates to the amount of Ll7 10s. Witness had demanded the amount, and Mr Klein refused to pay it. It was still diie. Cross-examined by Mr Rees — Defendant was assessed at that amount. Witness assessed him. He had been employed by the Corporation of the Town of Hokitika. Mr Kces hcrcpuc to the witness several questions with a view of ascertaining under which Ordinance the rate the plaintiff now sought to recover wa3 struck. Mr Harvey stated that to save time he would admit that the rate was struck under the old Ordinance, Session xiv., No. ii. Mr Rees submitted that plaintiff must be non-suited, inasmuch as the rates now sued for were rates under the old Ordi- ' nance, (Session xiv., No. n.) which had been repealed by the Hokitika Municipal Corporation Ordinance, 18(37. By the last Ordiaance there was no transmission of any property from the old Corpora! ion to the new, and consequently the new Corporation could have no property in the ! rates struck by the old Corporation. i Mr Harvey said that he was prepared to meet the objection raised by his learned friend. He would at once admit that the rate now sued for, had been struck under the old Ordinance, but although that Ordinance had been repealed, it did necessarily follow that every thing done under it had been repealed also ; on. the contrary, he contended that whatever had been done under the old Ordinance still held good. The old Corpcxation could have sued for the whole of the rates on the 7th January, 1867, when they were assented to by the Superintendent; and those who had not paid their rates were as much in debt to the Corporation now as they were then. No Act of legislation could take away property belonging to a private person, or to a Corporation, and a debt being property, it could nol be taken away. He also contended that the repeal of the old Ordinance did not necessarily cause a dissolution of the Corporation in the absence of any express legislation to effect that dissolution. Mr Bees, in reply, contended that the Elaintiff must be nonsuited, inasmuch as is learned friend admitted that the sum sued for was a debt due under an old ordinance, which had been abolished. Mr Harvey— The Act was repealed, but the corporation never re as abolished.

Mr Rees would refer his learned friend to sec. 20. Under the sth section of the repealed ordinance the Municipal Council was made a Corporation, aud the rates were therefore due to them ; but the new

ordinance not only repealed the old one, but it effectually abolished the old Corpo- , ration. The present rate- collector being a servant of the new Corporation, could f only sue under the 91st section of. the new ordinance for rates due and payable under that ordinance. It had been stated by his learned friend that a debt due to a Corporation could not be abolished, but mi btephen s Commentaries, vol. Hi., p. 147, it was stated, » That on the dissolution of a Corporation all debts duo to or from it were for ever abolished, and in order to preservo the rates as a debt due to the new Corporation a special claim should nave been introduced into the new ordnance ; ' but this had not been done, ana therefore the new Corporation had

nothing whatever to do with the rates levied under the old ordinance. His Worship took time to consider his judgment. There were several other civil cases disposed of, but they were devoid of all public interest whatever. They involved no principle or question of any importance. The Court was then adjourned till 11 o'clock next day.