RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 313, 1 August 1868, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, Jui/y 31. (Before J. Giles Esqr., R.M.) OBTAINING GOODS UNDER FALSE PRETENCES. Joseph Jackson was charged with having obtained goods from Fleming Parry and Co. under false pretences. J. S. Fleming said, that the prisoner came to his shop on the morning of the 17th inst. and asked the price of scrim. About half an hour afterwards, he called again, and got-14 yards, saying it was for Mr Sheahan, and was to be put down to the latter's a-count. The value of the goods was £2 0 4d. The bill was taken to Mr S'leahan on Monday and he refused to pat it, saying that he had not authorised the prisoner to get anything for him. Witness's partner saw prisoner 'and he promised to pay the amount that evening, but in the interval witness gave him into custody. In reply to the Bench, witness said that prisoner had bought goods at their establishment about twelve months ago, about the time they first opened. Prisoner had never ordered goods for Mr Sheahan before. The account for the goods, prisoner bought was in his own name, and had not been paid, and on this account witness was particular in asking him if it was for Mr Sheahan.

Timothy Sheahan, proprietor of the Nelson Hotel, said, the prisoner had worked for him for some days, begining on the 16th inst. He never authorised prisoner to get goods for him, either from Fleming Parry and Co. or any other. Prisoner brought the scrim to witness's had, it sewn, and proceeded to put it up in a detached room on the premises. Prisoner entered into a contract to do work for the sum of £l3 10s, but he left the work when only partially finished, and witness had to pay £8 to complete it. It was positively in the contract that he himself was to supply all material, and witness had advanced him £7 18s 6d on account of it. Prisoner and two men commenaed work on the 17th. The men did not work longer than that day, but prisoner did some days after when he came and anologised s vying that he had b e:i drunk. "Witness had employed others to finish it, but prisoner was taken on. Prisoner had been overpaid by witness for what he had done. In reply to prisoner witness said, that when the job was taken, prisoner told him he had no money. He did not agree to pay for the materials, and deduct the money, but advanced £4 18 6d. He gave prisoner £3 to buy paper and scrim with, besides that amount. In defence prisoner said there was an understanding; that Mr Sheahan should supply the necessary timber and material, and he thought he was justified in getting the scrim, as he had done. The money, said to have been paid him for materials, was applied to drink, and he thought that the scrim was paid for in it. The goods were now in Mr Sheahan's possession, and he had received no benefit from it. The Magistrate did not think there was sufficient evidence to justify him in convicting the prisoner of deliberate fraud, and he was discharged with a caution. CIVIL CASES. Blair v. Putton: —This was an adjourned case to recover £73. The debt was admitted but defendant said that he had paid the amount in full, and held a receipt for it. It appeared that the summons was issued by the present plaintiff and that the names of his partners, George Norman, and Charles Bachelor, were not included in it, which would have been fatal to the case, but the defendant made no objection to the summons being amended, and the case proceeded. In crossexamination, plaintiff denied that he had any knowledge of the payment of the money. Norman was his partner. Defendant said that three of them contracted the debt, three years ago. Last April twelve-months, he paid plaintiff's partner, Norman, the whole amount in cash, labour and materials.

Greorge Norman said he had been a partner with plaintiff, but did not consider he was now. He was partner at the time the bill was contracted for this claim. The defendant sectled up by contra accounts, and he owed nothing to the firm, except £25, and that

witness and Bachelor had given defeudnnfc notice not to pay the plaintiff furfher than his third share or that they would sue him for it. In reply to plaintiff witness said he did not hold himself responsible for any debts of Blair and Co. during the last eight or nine months. The Magistrate said this was a rather complicated case, as the partners did not act in concert. It was certain as one of the parties came forward and said that it had been settled, he could not give a verdict for the amount. The money for the coal mine was due clearly, however, but it appeared that a notice had been given for it not to be paid to plaintiff; as the three names had since been added to the summons the firm were suing and the notice became of no effect, and the firm were really suing. He should therefore give a verdict for the sum of £25. There were some other small debt case but none of public interest.