Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

AS HB ORTON. —To -day.

(Before H. C. S, Baddeley, Esq., R.M.)-

Thrkatbning and Obscene -Language and 111 egal Kesoue. —Daniel Buckley was charged with the above offences. Wilding prosecuted and Mr Branson appeared for the accused.—A. M. Pearsota, bailiff of the Court, produced a warrant of distress issued against a farmer named Blackburn.—Mr sran#on ponteaded that

the warrant was bad, being signed “R. Alcorn, J. P.whereas it should have been signed “R. Alcorn, Justice of the Peace in and for the colony of Now Zealand.”—The Bench reluctantly agreed with Mr Branson’s contention, and Mr Wilding therefore withdrew the charge of illegal rescue. —James Lennard said that ha went to Buckley’s farm on the Slat May with two men and six horses, to remove a machine. He met Buckley on the road, who said the witness should not have the machine. Buckley accompainied witness to the farm, and when there Buckley took off his coat and sent a lad for his gun. The gun was afterwards sent back to the house, and Buckley locked the gate and

threatened to strike the witness. Buckley said that he had nothing against the witness privately, but that the Ashburton bailiffs were rogues. The witness said that he wanted the machine, and Buckley replied that he would have to bring a strong team of the Ashburton Volunteers to effect his purpose. Buckley used very obscene language.—Cross-examined by Mr Branson: The row occurred at the gate abutting upon the public thoroughfare, part on Buckley’s property and part on the road. Two other men were within five yards of witness when Buckley used the obscene language. [At this stage Mr Wilding said that he would

withdraw the charges with the exception of that for usiug obscene language.]— Robert Silcock said that he had accompanied the previous witness to Buckley’s farm, and had heard the obscene language used by Buckley,—Ed. Harwell corroborated the evidence of the previous witnesses. —Mr Branson addressed the Bench on behalf of the accused, who was fined L 5 and costs, with the alternative of six weeks’ imprisonment, civir, CASES.

Smith v. Sueddo.i, claim, L 5 3s —Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs.

. Same v. Russell, claim, L 6 9a 4d Judgment by default for the amoun claimed and costs.

Quill v. Parkin, claim, L 8 4s 6d Judgment by default for the amount cT&imed and costs.

Same v. Robinson, claim, Ll 7 3i, Mr Branson for the plaintiff, Mr Wilding for the defendant —18* bad been paid into Court, and he pleaded >ha Tippling Act, in respect to the balance. —Mr Branson said that he was compelled to accept the amount paid into Court and withdraw the remainder of the claim, bat he applied for cost*. —After argument by counsel engaged, costs were a 1 (owed to plaintiff. Hay v. Jackson, claim, L2 10*—LI 18s was paid into Court, —Ja*. Hay, the plaintiff, deposed that he had driven sheep for the defendant, and charged tbe usual rate, 12a 6d a day.—Adam Jackson, farmer arid dealer at the Rangilata, said that the plaintiff had been engaged to drive sheep for him without the rats' of wages being mentioned. The usual rate was 10* a day. Witness had fifteen years, experience. He had never paid 12* 6d. —Alfred Curtis, said that drivers usually received 20* a day when the; found themselves in horse, dogs and board. —Crossexamined by plaintiff: Be had heard Jackson offer the piaintiff these terms, which were declined. Judgment for tbe amount paid into Court. Betts v lee, claim L 5 os. Mr Wilding for the plaintiff, Mr Branson for defendant. —A. Betts, plaintiff, deposed that he had leased a horse to the defendant for harvest work at 10a a week, and he now claimed the amount of the hire.—Crossexamined by Mr Branson : It was agreed that defendant was to give L 8 far the horse in a month, or if he could not then purchase, 10s a week hire. He bad told the defendant to bring the horse back when he had finished with it. The defendant had never offered him L2 on account. —A. Lee, the defendant, said that the plaintiff had offered him the horse at L 7, or to take L2 for the use of it during harvest. Plaintiff said at that time that he was unable to sell the horse. The horse was suffering from poll-evil and was frequently unfit for work. He had offered the plaintiff L2 for the horse ia accordance with the agreement. Some horses would be worth 13* a week for harvest wdtk.—Catherine Lee, wife of the previous witness, said that plaintiff' had told her that it was a good thing her husband hid the horse, as he (the plaintiff) had sufficient h->r*es for the harvest.—Judgment for L2 and costa. Duncan v LeCretoa, claim Ll 3 18* lid. Mr Wilding for the plaintiff, Mr Branson for the defendant. —P. Duncan gave evidence that the defendant had offered to pay so much in the L, and witness agreed to accept the offer on condition that Reid and Gray and all the other creditors agreed also. Finally had received L2O and an old machine, which was afterwards sold for Ll 6, in payment. In crossexamination by Mr Branson the documents produced, stating that L2O and a machine to be delivered would be accepted in full payment of debt, and a receipt for the machine, were admitted.—Jas. Keir, manager for plaintiffi at Asnburtoa, sai that he had issued a summons against the defendant, m which certain costa werefincurred. withdrew the summons in accordance with instructions received from Christchurch. Afterwards wrote to headquarters on account of hearing that I eßretou had paid some of the creditors ia full. In conversation with defendant, the latter admitted having p id Reid and Gray in full, and he -said that if ho sold his place he would probably pay plaintiffs, but not before the end of next harvest. Witness refused this, and the present summons was issued. —P. Walker, manager for Raid and Gray, said that Leßreton Owed his firm Ll 6, which had been paid in full. Ten shillings in the pound was never offered to witness’s fi m—Mr Branson submitted that he was entitted to a nonsuit on the strength of the documents put In. Mr Wi ding having replied, the Bench decided to hear evidence. —F. Leßreton said that he had offered the defendant L2O and a broadcaster in full settlement of the debt. —Cross-examined ; did not say I he was paying Reid and Gray 10s in the pound. Mr Duncan was the first creditor witness saw, so witness could not have said so. Plaintiffs asked if he was going to pay Reid and Gray 20s in the pound, and witness said he did not know. Had never promised Keir that he would’pay the account after selling his farm. His Worship gave j udgment for Lll 18* lid and costs.

Tisch v Jephson, claim of LB.—Mr Wilding for plaintiff, and Mr Crisp for defendant. This was a claim foe a dishonored cheque, and the plaintiff, the landlord of the Alford Forest Hotel, gave evidence that the defendant asked witness to cash the cheque produced, and it was dishonored. Subsequently defendant had offered witness a cow and half a bullock ita settleme t, but the offer was refused. amination witness said he could not say when the cheque was actually presented in Christchurch. —Mr Crisp submitted he was entitled to a nonsuit, on the ground that the cheque had not been presented within a reasonable time,' nor had it been presented to the Bank by the plaintiff, who gave it to a man named Taylor, lie quoted authorities in support of his contention. —Mr Wilding answered, contending that he depended upon the acquiescence of the defendant in ’ the re-preseiat-ment of the cheque. After farther argument* the Behch decided to hsar evidence, and Mr Crisp called the defendant, who remembered receiving the cheque produced for L 8 from Bocock, which was changed by'plaintiff. Nothing said between them about the cheque.’ Heard nothing more about the matter for five or six weeks, when plain- 1 tiff told witness the cheque was no good I

H«d given plaintiff another cheque for LI 3s, drawn by Pocook, and thought plain* tiff meant the little one._ Went t 6 Methven with Tisch at the lattar’s request to get the money from Pocook, but waa on* successful. Pocock paid cheques to the amount of L6O when witness received his, and witness had never heard of anyof them being dishonored.— Cross-examined: Received letter produced from plaintiff, but did not answer it. Did not know, of any other of Pocock’s cheques being dis* honored. The bargain with Tisch about cattle had nothing to do with the cheque. —Mr Wilding wished to call rebutting evidence to show that the defendant -wished to give a cow and half a bullock in payment of the dishonored cheque, but the Bench ruled it inadmissible,4as the witness should have been called before the plaintiff’s case was closed.—Counsel then addre sed the B ench on both sides, and judgment was given for the amount claimed and costs.

Tisch v Gorman, claim of L 8 9a for board, lodging, etc. Mr Wilding appeared for the plaintiff, for whom "judgment was given by default.

Official Assignee in Bankruptcy v N. Fitz Gerald, claim L 24 16a 4d. Mr Parnell for plaintiff and Mr Crisp for defen- . dant.—This was an application for a judgment summons for the amount of judgment obtained by defendant against his brother, William Fitz Gerald, and the defendant was pat into the box and examined as to the value of the property he possessed. In cross-examination Mr Crisp wished to ask the witness a question regarding an arrangement entered into ' between William Fitz Gerald and Mr Hugo Friedlander, but Mr Purnell objected.— The Bench, after argument, decided that the’question was not admissible.—J. 0. * Bell, Deputy Official Assignee, identified the documents filed by William FitzGeral in the bankruptcy. .ho present proceed ings were taken by witness on behalf and with the approval of all the creditors.— Mr. Crisp raised tome technical points to the' effect that tiie Court oould not recognise the Deputy Official ' Assignee, bat they were overruled. An order was made to pay the amount within three weeks with the alternative of two. calendar months’ imprisonment.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AG18840704.2.9

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1297, 4 July 1884, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,733

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1297, 4 July 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1297, 4 July 1884, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert