RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Western Star, Issue 1387, 7 September 1889, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, 6th September. (Before 11. McCulloch. Esq., 8.M.) CIVIL CASES. E. C. Roberts v. Mon Chop.—Claim, £1 Is 6d.—Judgment for amount with cost?, 14s BREACH OF THE LICENSING ACT. Lachlan McKenzie, being a licenser! person within the meaning of the Act, 1881, w, as charged that he, through his wife, refused lodging to one John East, he being a lona fide traveller. Mr Finn appeared for Mr McKenzie. Scrgt. Rutledge conducted the prosecution and called Constable Joyce, who gave evidence in regard to the license being issued to Mr McKenzie. John East, laborer, deposed that in July be was living at Biackmount. Remember the 16th of that mouth; the night previous slept in what is called the iron but on MiHare’s run, and on the day in question went to McKenzie’s accommodation house at Taylor’s Greek. Had some drinks served by Mrs McKenzie; got that drunk that I) era me unconscious. When witness became conscious, about daybreak ou the 17th, was lying in tussocks at Waioooe Creek. Was in a most deplorable state. Went to the homestead, and after having a sleep wont to work, but found could not do anything on account of having been frost bitten on the night of 16tb. Was forced to come to the Riverton hospital. The manager sent witness down to Otautau in a dray about a week after he had lain out. Don’t remember what occurred on the evening of the 16th, or how I got to Waioooe Creek.

To Mr Finn:—Don’t pay for support in the hospital; suppose will do so. Am nnablo to work. Have been woi’kipg about Blackmount for two years. The police took the case up. The hut witness lived in was about three miles from McKenzie’s. Had been living there eight or nino months. Thomas Bat's, ploughman, working at Blackmount, remembered the IGth July Reached McKenzie’s from, Otantau, on the evening of that day. Saw Bast lying outside asleep alongside the stone chimney. Witness woke him up; he was in a very drunken state. Saw Mrs McKenzie, who was standing at the door. Spoke to her about Bast saying, as East was too drunk to ride or get about, would she give him a bed. She refused, and witness asked a second time and offered to pay. She again refused. East was not sober enough to understand. Witness then tried to got East home; with assistance put him on horseback, but they had only proceeded a few yards when East fell off. Made another start, and got as far as Waicooo Creek when hr again fell off. Witness then got on behind East, but the animal bucked and threw them both off - Seeing that the horse would not carry the two of them, and being unable to get along with East, placed him alongside some tussocks, and left him. It was about 8 o’clock, and a frosty night. Met East next morning coming to Blackmount; he was looking very bad.

Mi’ Finn cross-examine:! witness as to date.

Allan Mo'latt, mail boy, deposed, remembered going to McKenzie’s accommodation house with the last witness and his brother on the 16th July. Reached thereabout 5.30. Saw East lying as described by last witness. Mrs McKenzie came to the door to take the mail bag, and heard Bates ask her if shr would give East a bed, and she answered she would not let him in that night. Witness also asked her to let East in, and offered along with Bates to see him put to bed, but she said she would not let him in on any account. Hoard Bates offer to pay for bed for East. Witness corroborated Bates’ evidence in regard to the efforts made to get East home. Mr Finn submitted there was no case. The whole point was, was this man a traveller at all, and he would further submit there was no evidence that Mrs McKenzie was acting on defendant’s behalf. Bast could not be considered a travellver in any sense of the word—we say he was not a traveller, but a neighbor, and again he had never asked for accommodation. His Worship said the only doubt in his mind was the definition of the word traveller. He would give his decision when he had looked up the point. Tim case would be adjourned to Invercargill for decision till Monday, 9th inst. ASSAULT. William Brownridgo, son of James Brownridge, farmer, Fairfax, was charged with assaulting Andrew Sinclair on the morning of the 31st August. Mr O’Reilly appeared for complainant and Mr Anderson for defendant. From the evidence adduced, it would appear the assault was of a very Irivial character, and arose out of some ill-feeling engendered by remarks made by complainant, to the effect that defendant objected to certain persons attending meetings of the Fairfax Hail Committee. Defendant denied over having made the remarks attributed to him, and at 4 o’clock in the morn- j mg on the 31st, outside the Hall where

festivities wore going on, taxed comolainat.t with circulating the reports. Complainant; stated that defendant then struck him on the breast, whereas, Brownridgo deposed } u merely pushed Sinclair.

The Magistrate, on dismissing the case, said he considered it very potty altogether, and one that should not have been brought on. Ihc whole business— except, perhaps tho* entertainment—was a miserable affuii. ’ THE OKAKI BULLOCKS. P kS™ ll , v - Henry and sons.— Cl.-mi, &19, value of four bullocks unlawfully SSg -M de i® nda " tB - Mr Anderson for plaintiff; Mr linn for defendants. After stating the facts of tho case Mr Anderson called John Concher who deposed : Know defendants. I rodnee a bill of sale given hi F. Henry to John Connor, included in which 18 n,en , t,one I fl bullocks. Could not St ani brands from defendant. Witness bought Id bullocks for Henry. p ut } n for purchase of 10 of those from Hamlin Bros Don t think defendant had,any, other bullocks except the ones witness purchased for him—ho m.ght. have had two. Know the six bidS" K.:Trr se(110 ba in tbe biil sale. Of the I f witness purchased 1, two died six were put,,, tho bill of sale, anil witS got six for a plaining machine. Saw the bul oc-;:s seized and purchased by Bailor four of the n worn bullocks purchased lor Henry 5 x 8 Sts 5J,? b JJ 8 * ***** 11 TotT£ Rivenou; the bullocks wore at Colac Mr 7.x? r Tl mL; Her, bill of salo to CooXX request. Witness owed Com,™ 688 *ss X r„o“s £lso° of .f all?> the consideration being Afio'J, (,ue to witness bv Henrv at S and a further sum of £SO given h?!-* * to defendant. Witness never by fcness of tl» Irallooks mentioned in X ffoTS.” at Henn?mi!I ’ ba,liff ’ ? eposecl ’ ‘be plant etc. £<so Thn l, ! . Was sold und c bill of sale for separately nndTSrtrSa foJ'renT“ BP Hod mo™,; led pounds a year or ft™ u- * cuou ‘‘ ana different ways. Could not ThTrhev ho had his money in gold, notes, or cheques i»x;:xrß e n.;.fs“- fxi ** His WnNtm n, * 1 u u s 8- answer to His Woiship, tbe witness said he paid part of the money silver, and thought Mr Finn’s wSr T h • f 3 r n His W °«MP cautioSS he had heel d Si| I ° gave answers such as n. had been doing they would not believe a woid he said.] Sold bullocks to Mr Traill on Bth August, for £l6. Trail paid S down, and said he would work tho res^oft n P r eSSi ° n 0f bul,ocka till 27th rnSniT f°i k hem at 4 o’clock in the they were running at on Government ground. Mr Concher was with him when ho took possession. Mr Traill paid witness in single notes. Spent the KVV bo w? the Place - Took the bulHemw’t t T i ail *u : afferwar<J s beard the Heniv s took them hack. Mr Firm asked some further questions, but the answers were irrevela' t.

Andrew Peter Traill, farmer, residing at Crab deposed he bought 4 bullocks from l° r ’ the - v wo delivered to witness on 37th August. They were taken away the same (i ay by the Henrys’.i Witness-inf dimed them that the bullocks were bis, and they would take them away at their own responsuulity They said that before witness got them they would kill the bullocks ifter wards demanded the.bullocks. Mr Finn submitted that there was no oaso to answer The action could not lie ia between Traill and the defendants. It had also appeared from Conchor’s own evidence that no consideration had been received for the bill of sale. His Worship sai l if the bullocks wore the same as mentioned in the bill of sale there was no doubt that Tra 1! had a claim on them The cattle ought to be able to be identified by the bill .of sale itself. He. thought there was a ease, and evidence for defendants’ should bo called. v & Frauds Henry deposed the bullocks, the subject matter of the ease, wero not included in bill of sale. Boforo. tho time the bill of sale was given sold four bullocks to my sou, three of them wore the ones now claimed by Traill. Owe nothing to Conchor. To Mr Anderson.—Will not swear the stamp on the receipt was cancelled on day it is dated, but it was within a day or two. Will swear positivelv the four bullocks were not included in the sis mentioned in the bill of sale. Andrew Henry deposed the four disputed bullocks w.-re his property since February 1886; they may he worth £3O. There was no demand made upon witness for tha bullocks except that Concher came to him and said be wanted them. To Mr Anderson.— The bullocks wore given to witness for wages owing—£4o.

His Worship did not think it bad been provedthobullocks wore thesameig mentioned in the bill of sale. There seemed to have been no consideration for the bill of sale. Thera is also a question: Did Bailey buy these bullocks and sell, them ? Ho may have done so as agent for Concher. The evidence of the Heurys’ was very empnthic on the point that tho bullocks were not those in the hill of sale. Judgment would be for defendants’ with costs £1 Is. IAIItSC TO-PROVIDE., Hen 17 Raines was charged on the informstmn of his mother, Margaret Raines, with failing to provide to her support. 5 Mr O’Reilly, who appeared in'support of tho information, stated that judgment was given in Invercargill over 12 months ago on an agreement to pay so much a wcek.° The judgment, was not, satisfied, and what they now asked for was an order.

The complainant in her evidence said she was an invalid, and unable to support hnrsolf, and although she had five sons sho could not look to any but defendant for sup. port. ■

Henry Raines, the defendant, said ho was a baker by trade, but was at present in financial difficulties, and all he now receiver! to support his wife and family was 13s rent of a house owned by his wife. Counsel for complainant closely questioned him in regard to the property alleged to bo hold in° Ida wife’s name.

Mr O’Reilly said he considered that defondant was endeavoring by making his wife appear as tho holder of valuable property to get out of a just payment, and he thought is was an impudent and transparent fraud. His Worship did not think it had been proved that defendant had sufficient means and be, muse refuse to make the order.