RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 298, 15 July 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, July 14. (Before J. Giles, Esq., R.M.) DKTJNK. James Moran, for being drunk and disorderly, was fined £l. Patrick Harley, charged with the same offence forfeited his bail. ALLEGED DISOEDEBLY HOUSE. Robert Hayne, landlord of the Royal Oak Hotel, was summoned under the goldfields licensing Act, for having within three months allowed disorderly conduct in his licensed house. Mr Pitt appeared for the defendant, and submitted that the information could not be sustained as there was no specific charge. They were summoned for a period extending over three months, no date or specific offence was given, and yet they were under the Act liable to a fine. Inspector Ffanklyn argued that this was not necessary. The Magistrate did not how any fine could be imposed unless, there was proof of a specific offence. Inspector Franklyn after this expression of opinion from the bench withdrew the information. PER JURY. Jolliffe v. Leach :—Mr Pitt for the prosecution, Mr Tyler for the defence. This was a charge preferred by the complainant against defendant, for perjury alleged to have been committed in the trial of a case heard at the last District Court. The parties have been engaged in litigation for a long period, but on the occasion in question, defendant recovered a verdict for wages and money lent, when the alleged perjury was committed. Thomas a olliffe said:—l am a pubbcan residing at Charleston. I was the defendant in a case at the last District Court,, in which the present defendant was plaintiff. Amongst other items there claimed by him of me were fourteen weeks wages, at the rate of £Q per week, ending April

3rd, 1867. The defendant was exam- < ned at the District Court, as a wit- 1 ness on his own behalf. This was on • the Bth or 9th of June; before Judge Clark. I heard him give his evidence on that occasion. He was asked if he was absent digging four or five weeks, from the 3rd of April, and he said he was not. I know that during that time he used to leave the place to go digging though I never saw him digging. He was a partner of mine, at the time. He first went digging on the 18th of February, to the Five Mile with a man named William Noble. I remember he and Noble took out a miners right at that time, on the same day. He was to come in in the evening, and go out first thing in the morning. He continued mates with William Noble for about a week and then joined William King. On the 27 of February, Defendant told me he was going with King and Hargraves, and he did go with them for I sow him. He continued mates with .King some fourteen or fifteen days. The license produced, was my license, and about the 18th of March 1867 it ran out, I did no more business then till the 18th of April, when I took out a iiesli license. During that inter d not carry on any business as a publican. He was not with me from the 18th of February till the 3rd of April. He claimed wages from me during that time as barman. From March to April I and my wife were conducting another house for a man named Broadbent. My wife rather was conducting the business but I went to stop there. By Mr Tyler: —Leach sued me several times before he sued me in the District Court. On the first occasion in the Eesident Magistrate's Court at Charleston, begot judgment, and a re-hearing was granted. In the District Court I set up a defence and swore to it that I had never engaged him at at all, and that he was a partner of mine, and in the face of that the Judge gave a decision in his favor for £93 odd. I called several witnesses that time as well as giving my own evidence. I heard the Judge give

judgment, and heard him say that perjury had been committed by one or the other ; my impression is that he thought I was the perjurer. My counsel on that trial asked defendant if he was digging four or five weeks previous to the 13th of April, and he said no. It is on that, that I now charge him with perjury. The question was not whether he had been away four or five weeks ; the question might have been were you not absent four or five weeks digging during the time you now claim wages. Mr Pitt might have asked him previously whether he was away at the Four Mile at all. I did not hear defendant say he was away. I do not remember whether Mr Pitt asked him if he was away digging at any other place. I do not recollect that he admitted that he was away twice digging. I am not positive ; he was in fact, away with Noble and with King ; he was with N<ble about a week. He went with King on the 27th February. Saw Leach go away. I am positive of the date. I have remembered the day since. I did mention either Noble or King's name at the District Court. It was within my knowledge then. I did not give it in evidence then. I swear that on that on that occasion he denied that he had been away four or weeks. I thought that he would have admitted it. It was necessary for me to prove that he was not wages man. I looked at the date of Leach's miners right before the trial in the District Court. I swere it was the 27th or 28th that he went with King. Defendant was away several times prospecting and working in claims. I closed my house on the 18th of March, but did no business. Both defendant and myself were there. lie-examined by Mr Pitt —I knew all along that defendant had been away, but it did not occur to me in the witness box I did not expect he would deny it. Mr Whitef,ord Clerk of the Court, produced the papers referring to the case of Leach v. Jolliffe, heard at the sitting of the District Court. Defendand was sworn then, and gave evidence, and when asked if he was absent for five weeks of the time he claimed wages for B he said no. Cross-examined by Mr Tyler— Defendant said he was away once or twice, or something of that sort. He said he was away digging once, and also that he was away once altogether. William Noble, proved that he knew Leech fifteen or sixteen months ago at Charleston. "Witness and he took out miners rights within a day or two of each other, about that time. They worked as mates two and a half or three days, not more, and Leach then went back to Charleston. They worked at the Four-mile, witness saw him at work at Hargraves terrace

with King a weok or two afterwards, but only knew of him working there two or three days. By Mr Tyler—When defendant worked with witness he" walked into Charleston each night, and staid at Jolliffe's he believed. By Mr Pitt—Leach told witness that he was waiting to square up with Jolliffe. "William King proved that in the latter part of February, 1867, he was digging with defendant at a place about two miles from Charleston, about a month, but a week of that time they were not at work in consequence of the Greymouth races. This was about the 17th of March. They sold out about a week after that. By Mr Tyler—They slept in Charleston every night. Defendant slept, witness believed, at Jolliffe's. He did not believe there was a week's work done altogether in the claim. He had seen Leach serving behind the bar at Jolliff's during the month they were mates. By Mr Pitt—Leach seut a wages man in his place two or three days of the time. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Tyler submitted that there wasno case of perjury whatever shown. The allegation of perjury was that the defendant had been askel if had he been away four or five weeks, and that he had sworn he was not. It had not been shown that he was absent such a time, the most that could be shown was sixteen or seventeen days. What defendant stated was true in point of fact, and there was no ground for charging perjury in any way whatever. The whole time that the defendant was mining he stayed at Jolliffe's and slept there. The Magistrate, when the learned Counsel was proceeding with his address, stopped him by saying that he was perfectly satisfied that there was no case of perjury to go to a jury, and he had no hesitation in dismissing the information.

Mr Tyler asked if the Bench would offer any expression of opinion as to the defendant heing tainted by these proceedings. The Magistrate said he should certainly decline to offer any expression of opinion on a case that had already puzzled a judge of the District Court. Mr Tyler remarked that it was very well known what the judge's opinion was. The defendant was then discharged. citil cases. Scott v. Patrick.—Mr Tyler for the plain tiff. This was a claim for £5 toll, alleged to be due to the plaintiff as the licensed holder of a right to impose tolls on the Caledonian Track, by the defendant, who is a packer. The defendant did not deny any of the facts as to his horses travelling over the track, but denied the right of the plaintiff to claim toll, as the time of his protection had expired. On reference to the Gazette it appeared that on the 25th of February last a notice appeared whereby plaintiff was authorised to charge tolls on the track in question for six months from the Ist of January, the sum for a loaded horse being there set down at 3s. Subsequently another notice appeared, raising the toll from 3s to 5s per loaded horse, but saying nothing about any extension of right, and the defendant now submitted that that had lapsed on the 30fch of June. Of the £5 claimed, £1 15s had accrued prior to the Ist of July, and this amount was paid into court. Mr Tyler argued that the second notice was, in fact, an unlimited extension of the right to levy toll, and that the plaintiff had a perfect right to claim it.

After some discussion the Magistrate said that it was quite clear that this right expired on the 30th of June. There could be no doubt that it could not hold good longer than the original license. Mr Tyler said even if such was the case, the question came whether any man could avail himself of another's labor without remunerating him. Even supposing plaintiff held no grant, he had rendered the track passable, and defendant had used it for a length of time for the passage of his loaded horses. During that time he had paid the fees demanded, but now he suddenly refused to do so. The Bench remarked that no doubt he would not have paid, but for the authority contained in the grant. Mr Tyler reminded his worship that no one was entitled to make use of another person's services without remuneration. If he was a grocer and left a pound of sugar at his Worship's house, and his Worship have the benefit, he would be entitled to receive payment for, it although it might not have been ordered.

The Magistrate asked if Mr Tyle meant to argue that any person wht chose to cut a track in the bush had ; right to charge tolls. Mr Tyler did so mean. In such j case both parties|would be wrong-doen as against the crown, but if any one of another's laboui notwithstanding that the other was £ trespasser himself, he had a legal righi to pay for it. The Magistrate, said suppose he pui a bar up, would not any one else have a right to kick it down. The whole question was whether it was legal for any one to charge toll to the public •without having a grant empowering him to do so. After so «e further argument, the Magistrate said that he did not wish to stop the argument of the learned counsel, but if he expected him to decide that aay person had a right to charge tolls on any track or place without a Government grant, authorising their imposition, he was greatly mistaken. He should, therefore, give judgment for the amount paid into court, not allowing anything for tolls •claimed on and after July Ist. There were other cases similar to the above brought by Scott against other parties, but all were dismissed as far as the July claims went. A few other unimportant civil cases were disposed of. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CHARLESTON. Mondat, JtTirrl3. (Before C. Broad, Esq R.M.) Henry Fry charged his wife with heing drunk and violently assaulting him. The woman, however, had a story of her own, and the case was dismissed. Goldstucker v. Anderson. The plaintiff claimed from the defendant, who was formerly postmaster here, the sum of £3O, for clerical assistance rendered in the post-office, and stated that he had brought the present action owing to his having failed to recover the amount from the Government, who repudiated Mr Anderson's acts so far -as regarded plaintiff's engagement. A statutory declaration made by the defendant before a Justice of the Peace in Dunedin had been sent to the Magistrate and was read in Court, but his Worship declined to receive it as evidence, and gave judgment for the full amount claimed and costs. Drennan and Scanlan v. JohnM'lvor —This was a re-hearing of an interpleader summons arising out of a seizure made by the bailiff, in a suit of Long and Co. v. Coffey. In the first hearing the plaintiffs sought to establish a title to the property seised by 'virtue of a bill of sale, but failed mainly, as it appeared, through want of the assistance of counsel. His Worship asked Mr Tyler, who now appearedfor the plaintiffs, whether he was prepared with any fresh evidence. Mr Tyler said that he would prove that the sale to the plaintiffs was a bona fide transaction, and. that Coffey was not in possession of the property at the timo of the seizure, having left the claim a week before. He called, Michael Kelly—who said he had been engaged by Drennan on the 2nd June, to work a share in the claim on Brown's terrace, and had been working it ever since. Coffey was not on the claim when he went there, mor had he been there any time after. Cross-examined by Mr O'Neill— When engaged by Drennan, nothing was said about wages, but he expected to receive the current wages. • Dennis Drennan storekeeper, examined, said he, in conjunction with Scanlan purchased three shares from Coffey, Gilroy and Flaher on the 18th May for £162, that being the value of goods supplied from December to that •date. At first he left the three men on the claim .as wages men, but afterwards on the 2nd July he put other two men on in their place. Cross-examined —Theunderstanding was that the shares were to be returned when amount of debt was paid off by the receipt of gold. Agreed to pay Coffey, Gilroy and Flaher, one shilling a week wages, according to document produced, but had not done so. After agreement was made out went him SBlf, and pegged off the claim afresh. For the defence Pat Coffey was called, and said the shares were given to plaintiffs as being the largest creditors to hold as security. Mention was made at the time of Long's account, which was to be paid. Pat Flaher said he put his mark to certain papers, but did not know the contents, or that he was transferring his share, and never asked. Mr O'Neill submitted that no actual sale had taken place, the bill of sale to plaintiffs being really, when read in •conjunction with the agreement, a con

ditional, not an absolute bill of sale, and as such it was useless because not registered. Mr Tyler pointed out that registration was only required when the grantor was in apparent possession, which was not the ease in this instance, the plaintiffs having clearly taken possession at least a week prior to the bailiff's seizure. His Worship in giving judgment remarked upon the utility of these interpleader actions, in sifting matters to the bottom. He considered the quesas to the bona fides of the sale to Drennan and Scanlan to be satisfactorily cleared up, and he should order the bailiff to withdraw from possession. Drennan Bros. v. Hanney—Judgment was given for £l2 19s and cost s Hunter v. Fenton—The plaintiff Mr ¥m. Hunter, sued defendant for £2O damages arising from the detention of a certain horse, which it appeared had wandered into defendant's stable, and there detained, because plaintiff' refused to pay £2 for feed Ac. Mr Tyler appeared for defendant. Judgment given for one shilling damages, and costs. 1

Shocking Atrocities in Chile.— The morals of Chile are not improving, judging from the following extract from the West Coast Mail :—At Araucania a frightful crime as been committed which has caused a great sensation among all classes. Some wretches managed to introduce themselves, in the middle of the night, into the house of an Indian named Trangu, situated near the new fort of Huequen, about a league distant from Anglo, where only women and children were sleeping, and committed the following atrocities. A woman of fifty years of age killed by cutting her throat, one of twenty years clubbed to death ; child at the breast and a two others of eight and ten respectively ditto, (the latter still breathed, but there were few hopes of his surviving) ; another woman of twenty years of age was left unconscious, and another managed to escape with life but horribly maltreated. Over fifteen persons have been arrested on suspicion, among others the officer in charge of the fort at Huequen; and judging from the activity displayed by the authorities, there is reason to believe the criminals will soon be discovered.—On the 26th ultimo the body of a man was taken to the prison of Los Anjelos, who had been stabbedto death the night before in the new town-ship of Pailihue. Nothing is known of the perpetrator or other particulars of the crime. Since the above crime was discovered traces of another have come to light, the body of a man covered with stabbs having been found in the road o Eucadillan. It has transpired that the deceased's name is Nova, who had disappeared the day before, but nothing else is known "concerning the murder. The deceased's face had been partially consnmed by birds of prey at at the time he was discovered. Eobberies especially of cattle, have become so general on the frontier that a potition has been forwarded through the Intendente to the Government, praying for a special and seveye law for Aracuo against this latter crime.

Scottish Prudence.—When the late Mr Telford, the engineer, (says Mr Smiles) made his last visit to his native valley of Eskdale, where he had in earley life worked as a mason, he called upon his former friends to recount with them the incidents of their youth. He was declared to be the same " canty" fellow as ever, and, though he had risen greatly in the world, he was " not a bit set up." He found une of his old fellow-workmen, Frank Beattie, become the principal inn-keeper of the place. "What have you made of your nell and chisels ?'; asked Telford. " Oh," replied Beattie' " they are all dispersed—perhaps lost." " I have taken better care of mine ,' said Telford ; " I have them all locked up iu a room at Shrewsbury, as well as my old working clothes and leather apron: you know one can never tell what may happen." I do not care a bit about woman's tears, since I have ascertained from Faraday—a jglorious fellow that—that tears are merely, chloride of sodium carbonate of lime, and general folly. I do not know whether I have the chemicals quite right; but, at any rate, since I have heard of this chemical analysis, I do not care for tears. Matrimonial advertisements peculiarities. A down-easter advertises his wife thus:— On the sixteenth of July, on the night of Monday, Eloped from her husband the wife of John Grundy; His grief for her absence each day growing deeper. .

Should any one find her, he begs them to —keep her.

A Libel Case at San Francisco.—A most extraordinary verdict has been given against the San Francisco Bulletin in a libel suit. The News Letter says in regard to it:— " The verdict in the Bulletin libel case is astounding—it is more than astonishing. Six thousand dollars to a fence carpenter for saying 'he was active in certain squatterriots in the Western addition;' and for a typographical mistake which, after he was tried for the crime of embracery, printed for 'not guilty' the ' verdict guilty,' which was corrected, explained, and apologised for in the next issue of the Bulletin. Fence carpenters hav riz in the market, and we are glad to know that the reputation of anybody in San Francisco is worth so much."