RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Wanganui Herald, Volume VIII, Issue 2238, 3 August 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Moxjjay, August 3iid. [Before B. W. Woon, Esq., E.M.] cia'it,. Major Kemp v. William Pawson.

This was a case in which the plaintiff sought to recover the sum of £4 7s, being an amount which had been detained out of a £5 note by the defendant.

Mr Hodge appeared for the plaintiff. Mr Pawson Avas not defended.

Major Kemp deposed—l remember the 3rd of July ; I purchased some meat on that day in Mr Hall's shop. I had on my person a £5 note ; I got it at the Bank of New Zealand on the same morning. I tendered that £5 note to Mr Pawson for the meat I had purchased ; I always pay cash for what I buy. I received 7s in change instead of £4 7s. I know it was a£s note as I looked at it when I gave it to Mr Pawson. I told defendant at the time that he had not given me the proper change. Wirihaua and Kukata and another native were present at the time.

Cross-examined by Mr Pawson — You weighed the beef and told me it was 13s, and I paid you.

By the Bench—l got the £5 note from the Bank about 1 o'clock on the 3rd July. The cheque I presented was a Government cheque for £25. I paid that amount away as folloAvs : —7 single notes to Mr Lamont, 3 single notes to aMr Campbell, and 5 single notes and I£s note into this Court. I then had a£s note left in my possession. Wirihana asked me to lend him some money. I told him I had only a £0 note and I would change it and give him what he wanted. Wirihana was standing near the Phoenix when I Avent into Hall's shop. lam certain I did not change the £5 note previous to my going into the shop. I purchased some meat and I handed the £5 note to defendant, who put it into his pocket. Defendant then Avent into a side room and returned and told me lie had no change. I went aAvay expecting if I called lie would give me the balance another day. I returned on the folloAving Tuesday, and defendant told me it was only a£l note. I have not received my chang"e since

Wirihana deposed—l went into the shop Avith Kemp and saw him give Mr Pawson a £5 note. Mr Pawson opened the note and Aveut into a side room and came back Avith 7s, which he handed to Kemp. I said to Kemp he has not given you your right change, lie lias only given you Bs. I "am positive it Avas a .£5 note that Kemp handed defendant.

Cross-examined by Mr Pawson— I did not buy any meat myself on the 3rd of July. I did not see you give Kemp 14s 6d in change. By the Bench—l saw the note. lam sure it was a£s note. I saw the figure son it. "William Pawson deposed—On Friday, 3rd July last, witness purchased a piece of pork in my shop, the amount he paid me was :3s. Kemp then purchased a piece of beef which amounted to 5s Gd. I told him the price, and he pulled out a note folded up and uave it to to me. I opened it out and went to" the till for change. I saw that I had not sufficient change in the till and. went into the house and asked Mrs Hall for Us ; she gave me 15s. I then went back and put ha]f-a-cro\m into the till and took out two shillings, and I then put the 14s Gd on the counter. Last witness went to pick up the money, and Kemp pushed him away. Witness "afterwards took up the change, and Kemp said it was all right. On the following Wednesday Kemp came and asked me if he had given me a £5 note. 1 told him he had not. He said, I lost a £5 note on the 3rd and I thought I had given it to you - he' then left the shop. Cross-examined by Mr Hodge—Kemp's statements are a fabrication from be»inning to end.

Mr Hodge— This is one of those unfortunate cases your Worship, where the evidence is of a contradictory nature. Mr 1 awson has sworn exactly the opposite to what the last Avitnesses have sworn, and I am afraid lie lias made a mistake. Wirihana a disinterested-party has -iven his evidence, which must have weight. It is not likely that lie would come here and make statements if he- knew them to he false There is a mistake in the claim -. it should have been £4 not .£4 7s.

The li.M. then addressed the Court as follows :—Tlig case, as Mr Hodge has stated is one of those unfortunate cases in which the evidence is contradictory-. It is a rather difficult question to decide, but I must <>hx> my decision by the evidence which I have

before me. I have the sworn testimony of a plaintiff and a respectable witness before me. Plaintiff has sworn that the note was a £5 note, and his evidence was quite clear on the matter, as lie had described the colour of the note and had stated what Bank it was on. The witness which he had called had sworn to having seen the note, hud described it, and had seen the number 5 upon it. The defendant had sworn against that evidence, —that the note was a £1 note. The R.ll. would have to take the evidence as it was before him. The plaintiff and witness had handled money long- enough to know a £5 note from a £1 note. Tliu evidence preponderated on the side of the plaintiff. Both witness andphiintiil: knew the nature of an oath, and they had both sworn that it was a£s note, lie would therefore have to decide with the preponderance of the evidence. There was a mistake in the information, but that did not effect the case, if Mr Pawson had brought a -witness to rebut the evidence of the natives, it would have altered the decision. Everybody knew that he wished to give a conscientious judgment between both races, and he felt he was doing so by giving judgment for plaintiff, for amount and costs.