RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT CAMBRIDGE.

Waikato Times, Volume XX, Issue 1703, 5 June 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' CO URT CAMBR IDGE.

WKfoX^-tßcfdrc^rrVH: i WAWf^cjoft, Esq., B. Moxtaoce 'v. : T. ! H. W. Morris.— Judgment rreserywl f rqm last court day. Judgment 1 mow f6r tpkintiff for £1 18s 7_a, A^nd r co^ts f ,£l v JB3 6d, and possession of "premises' to 'be given up. Mr 'Dyer, ■'■ for,, defendant,- applied^ for leave to appeal, which was, granted by the court. Provided the "appeal" should lapse, possession to be given in three weeks from this ' date.— McVeaghi v. P,\reti Ta mi liana. , Adjourned till next courtiday, Junejpth.— W. A. Richardl son* v. Areksitera 1 te" 'Wera. c Judgment summons, £2 10s. , Ordered to pay the amount with £1 o= Gd by one month, or in 'default one weeks' imprisduihent.Vr?A. Isaacs \. Napier.. Judgment v for amount claimed £4 Is, and costs Us. .Brennan v. Hoy.— Mr Djer for plaintiff, Mr Jtcesing for defendant.' 'Defendant was cluiged witli ill-treating a cow by leaving it in the pubhu sale yards without food or water froni the loth'MSjr-'to^May 17th. -~' ~ ' c. Robert Bradley, auctioneer and ac:c6untantof Hamilton, deposed tolling a strawberry cow to defendant on the 15th May about 2 p.m. > f To Mr K cosing : I have heard of cattle being kept by butchers for 21 hours before slaughtering to allow them to empty themselves. Don't know of them being kept 48 hours. I know batchers' like to keep their cattle in bare paddocks or a y.ud for .1 time before killing. 1 . To Mi 1 Brcniun : I have Lad considerable expciicnce with cattle. I* have heard that keeping' cattle a long time without water will damage the meat. To the bench : A cow will take about 24 hours to empty hcrsulf. | Jciemiah McGairry, ' of T.iotaoroa? remembered bunging in a cow to the, sale about noon on the loth May. Mr 1 Hoy bought her. S.iw the cow in the sale yaid next morning. To Mi Keesuig : Know that butchers' Keep co>vs. .i flay and anight bjfore 1 killing; base he.iul, butuheis' say so, I*'and1 *' and ha\ c seen it clone. Don't know any set time, aboii f"24 hours. * '*; "i Jas. P. Thomson, • accountant, Cambridge, remembfied a sale on the 15th May, and observed a cow in the yard from the date of sale' to somewhere about the forenoon of Thursday the 17th. She looked veiy wild. The regulations of the yards, made by the town board," pro-, vide for the removal of cattle the nightP of sale. The cow was standing in lin. or Gin. of mud. I thought it so cruel that I leported the matter to Constable Barry. The cow was in 'the yard nearly 4S houis. To Mr Keosiug : I spoke to Mr Hoy about tho matter. He said tie was going to kill it. Const.ible E. Barry deposed that a complaint was lodged with him on Thursday, the 17th, and in consequence went to to. the yard. The place waa duty, and the cow appealed in low condition. Defendant, being sworn, stated that it was a custom of butchers ,to keep cattle from 2 1 to 48 hours before killing, es« pocially if the hen ■its are wild. It improves tho condition of the meat, which both eats and looks better.- - Other butcheis do the same. To Constable Bronnnn : It would not make a cow \> lid to Ucep her fasting 48 hours if she was not wild befote. To the bench : I did not know the cow was m the sale yard, but if she h.itl been at my own place &he would have had the same treatment. O.ise allowed to stand over for the production of a material witness for the defence. T. Yates, butcher, said it was a good thing to keep a beast 4S hours fasting before killing. Defendant was convicted, and fined 40s, costs, £2 11s. K. Wiight vF. Cook.— Charge of assault. Mr Kee&ing for plaintiff, Mr Dyer for accused. Riohaul Wright deposed to going to Waotu to seize some goods under a bill of sale. Bill of sale produced, and objected to by Mr Dyer under Native Lands Act, 1873. The objection was not sustained by the bench, as defendant was not living as a member of a native tube at the time of the execution of the bill of sale. Mr Dyer raised another objection under Native L-\wl Amendment Act, 18S1. Point reserved. The case was allowed to stand over, pending decision on point reserved. Judgment summons cases :—: — R.iynes v, Arekatera te Wera. — Mr Dyer for plaint UV. No appearance 1 of defendant. Mr Dyer applied for an order, on the grounds that defendant had been in. Cambridge during the week, and even in court that day. The bench, with the knowledge they had, declined to make an older, as defendant hid gone to hmy his wife. Adjourned to next court day, Buckland v. Arekatera te Wera. — Mr Dyer for plaintiff. Also adjourned. Rijnos v. Eru te Haotu — Mi Keesing for plaintiff. No appeirance of defendant. Mr Dyer appeared for defendant, and asked to have the case postponed for a month. 11 ly ties v. Menihirn, and Raynes Y. Hen.ire Koioputu albo adjourned. Hoy v. Simmons —Claim, £26 18s Od. Mr Keesing for plaintiff. 0 tile red to pay the w hole amount within two weeks, with costs, £2 11s, or, in default, two weak =5 imprisonment. Isiac-. v. Poiuwha. Claim £35. Ordered to pay the amount in one month with costs i'~ lSt. Gd, or in default one nio'itli's imprisonment. "Wright v. Cook resumed. The bill of sale produced was admitted in evidence. R. Wright deposed to going to Waotu to seize defendant's goods under bill of sale in company with 11. Heaslip. Found no one at home. Forced open a window, and found a key.' Unlocked front door, lit a fiie and made some tea. Defendant aimed soon after, and asked who had broken into his liouso, and soized him (plaintiff) and forcibly ejected him. Gave no provocation to defendant. R. He.islip remembered going to the Waotu with Mr Wright. Mr Wright entered the premises b}' the window, found a key and unlocked the door. We lit a fii c and had some tea. Mr Cook came in and pulled off his coat, and asked who had entered his premises. On leceiving no reply he unlocked the front dopr, and seizing Mr .Wright by the shoulders pushed him outside, they fell down on the verandah. Mr Wright gave no provocation, but said he could show an authoiity for what he did. To Mr Dyer : I locked the door when we were ha\ ing tea. I don't know why. I 'am not in the habit of locking the door when I have tea. I knew what I was going to do when I went with AYrt^, Wright said if there was rio one in house he was going tobrcak in. , He read lv's authority on the road up.' ' It was by Mr Wnght's instructions that Me used the preserved milk, &c., to our tea. I left the house on being ordered out by Mr Cook. ' ' ' ' 'Mr* Dyer, for the defence, .stated that in the first place, per se,,the breaking into another riiatfs house is 1 " unlawful. Mr Wiight knew that Cook and his wife were away in Cambridge, and took advantage of this to go up and break into the house ; that Cook and his wife had come to Cambridge with the object of settling with Mr .Wright; that on Wrights own showing Wright resisted all he knew how to prevent Cook putting him out after words from Cook equivalent to an order to leave. The learned, counsel quoted authority to show thai one man has no right to force an entry Snio * another man's 'h'oasV' exc^t the sheriff or the Sovereign j besides'' even 'admitting the bill of sale",' which' was not Emitted, '-Wright had th'en no right to 4nirri'Cook's ! 'fuel,"use • his 1 kettlek," cups and saucers,''and open" aEiid use Jhis 'con- (- densed milk'. f'Why'cli'd two 'able-bodied men lock themselves in'tKe'house' if they 'ditf'not kri§w- they' were iif ! the' .wrotig. <-iMt tKeeßinfe replied 1 that' regarding the power to'-Weak'io,* ife l i«"legaJly"-pat in

Smith'fl " Local forms* for common use." Under the power in the bill of snlo Mr entered the house, and the result was unjustifiable, ns Mr Wiight's was a . 'i^gal ciitl-y. ' ' the defence, Caroline Jane Cook, \wifc 'of defcudaut, deposed : Hoard in /jCambridge-that Mr \V right had gone to j&OuVhouse.to break in and tike away our Vfifurnitnrc. On ariival home we found v the house lit up, and Mr Wright sitting at the tahlc, Mr Heaslip standing by. ' My husbnnd axked Heaslip to go out, ■which he did. My husband then asked "Wright to go out thiec timrs, he icfuscd, ' and my husband put him o.it, using no unncucssaiy foico, they fell on the * verandah, Mr Wiight uppermost. To Mr Keesuig : We took a buggy to ' . the Waotu, because mo could not walk , there. My husband onleied Mi Wmjht > out three times. He refused, and said, 1 - shan't, I have a light heie. Tim Mas in • side the house. . c Defendant, sworn, said : lam a natne agent In ing at Waotu. On the 18th of lust month 1 was in Cambridge, and heaid "tliat Mr Wiight had gone up to Waotu. I followed, and ai lived at 8 p.m. I ~- I opened the back dooi, and found Wright and Heaslip inside. I asked - Wright tin cc times who broke into my house. There was a long silence, at ,; length Wiight said he had a nglit to be there. I asked Heaslip to lea\e, and he ' did So. I opened the fiont door and put Wright out. F.'o lesisted. Wiight owes mo money. I came to Cambridge with the express pui pose of settling up with Wright. A pioimssuiy note fiom Wiight to Mrs Cook was put into coiut. Mr Keesuig objected, as tins would c.ill in 'ficsh evidence to explain it. The case Mas for assault only. '1 he I.N. was a bogus one. Mr Dyci objee- ' ted to the expression. Mr Kccsing said it Mas a bi'l that li.nl matuied, and had not been niesented. The bench i tiled that the P.X. '•liould be taken in o\idence Delendant : The bill is for £.10, money lent. The ic.ison it was not ppjsented is that Mr Wiight asked my wife hold it o\er. The bill of sale is foi il'2'l. Wright owes me otlicr moneys. To Mr Kecking : Wngbt bought <*oods : from Hally Bros. $ov the hotel. I did ;''iiot Older the goods. They wetc put '_' down to Wiight. Messis Hall} and Mi .Gillctt siipplied the gooilb to Mr Wnijht. I got goods from Messrs Lewis and Simp8Oi) on my own account. The £.;O\\as lent by my wife to Mr Wnglit out of her own money. I was acting as agent to Wright. My wife did not put the JP^) into the business. The good* I got M'eVe on Mr Wiight's> account ; I Mas acting as his agent. Mr Wi lght lias got the books of the stole. Mr Writfht has had the moneys. I claim £.~jO for the i'.N. and my wages. I came to Camhiidec to settle matteis. Wiight kept out ot my way. I offered to settle the bill of sale after he had sei/od. I have not tpndeied payment of the bill of sale to Mr Wi ight. Heaslip, recalled 1))' the bench : Jt was about 7 o'clock Mhen we got to the Waotn. The sun was down when we got into the house. Case dismissed, each party to pay his own costs. Km Tahitiingata v. Em Kaka and another. — Illegal detention of a horoo. Mi Keeping for plaintitT. M^i Hay for defendauts. Plamtifl deposed that ho lost a horse in Cambiidge, and heaid of being at defendants place at Mnngaknwa. Defendnnti wanted C~) to gne it uj>. In cios-> - examination by Mr Hay, plaintifT s.aid lie got the hoi&e in a lava at Til papa, and a letter Mas read in coiut, M'lieie he agreed to pay £3 when he had the money. Two witnesses Mere examined for the prosecution. l'l.iintiiT non-suited, with costs foi the defendant £."> Is (id. Cook ;. Wiight. — Claim, £20, for damage sustained by the foicil/Ie cntiy by the defendant into the dwelling house of the plaintill. The euduioc was pieciscly the same as in the case ot assault in which Cook was defendant. Judgment lescrved until next com t day.