MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1341, 14 September 1886, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBURTON—TUESDAY. [Before Mr H. 0. S. Bsddcley, B.M, CIVIL CASES. Mt Somers Road Board v Hugo Friedlander, claim £l3 lls 21 for rates.— Mr Wilding for plaintiff, Mr Purnell >for defendant. Mr Purnell submitted that the particulars of demand were not sufficiently explicit, and did not comply with the terms of theßesiient Magistrate's Act, He, therefore, asked that the claim be struck out. Mr Wilding applied for permission to amend the particulars.— Permission was granted, and the bill of particulars was amended.—The following evidence was taken :—J 0. Bell, collector to the Mount Somers Road Board, raid that personal demands to Hr Hugo Friectlander for rates due were made in July aud August. One of these demands was delivered by the boy, and waa in the usual form. The other which witness served himself, was in the form of an account and defendant paid part. Witness bad conversations with defendant with referenos to these rates subsequent to the serving of the notices He told witness to apply to the mortgages for payment of the amount unsettled. He admitted that he was then the owner of the properties on which rates were dne, nnder an agreement with the mortgagees. The rates for which witness was suing were arrears of rates due by one P usohel and one Eie. Witness understood from the conversation he had with Mr Frledlander that the latter expected the mortgagees, by virtue of the agreement, to pay any rates In arrear before he (defendant) entered into p ossession of the land. Puahel filed in 1884, after the striking of the rate due. Witness knew that Fried Under Bros took over the place shortly afterwards Witness produced the rate book in which Mr H. Frledlander was down as owner of Ede’a property, the amount of rate being £4 16 1 lOd ;he was also down as owner of Puschel’a land the amount of rate being £8 14s 41. Witness applied t > the morigageea for payment-when Mr Fnedlander told h : m to do so, but they declined to pay, saying that the land nas vested m Mr Frledlander. When witness saw Mr Frledlander he sa>d something about deducting the amount of ra a from interest doe to the mortgagee*

—By Mr Purnell: At the time rate was payable, September 15, 1884, A Ede wast«ted ts oco ipier of portion of the lan' 4 , the “own-c’a” name being left blank.

Mr FriedUnder’s name was not inserted as “owner” until after the rate book had been signed. It was inserted shortly after Ede fi el, Witne s’could n t swear that a notice bad been sent to Mr Fnedlander prior to bis name being inserted in the rate bo k, giving him notice that it waa intended that such should be done. With regard to Pusohel’s

property Mr Friedlander’s name was inserted shortly after the former filed. After some farther question* by Mr Parnell, the witness said that the enlrie* in the book were ini filled by the Board about a week ago. The witness was crossexamined at some length ss to the valuation roll. —Mr Parnell addressed the Court, submitting that the plaintiff must be nonsuited. The claim should be made by the Mount Somers Boad B'<ard, and not byfthe Mount Somers Road D : s rict—Mr Wilding said it was a matter for amendment. —Mr Pnrn°ll objected to ay amendment. —Mr Parnell further submitted that the fact of Mr Friedlander not having bad any notice of the Board’s intention to substitute his name for others was fatal to the plaintiffs’ claim The Valuation 801 l was not initialled, whereas the Bating Act and the amendment distinctly set forth that any alteration made should be Initialled by the Chairman, and that notice of such intended alteration should be sent to tbe person affected. This not having been done the alterations made in the Bate Book were not valid and, in addition, the alterations in the Rate Book were not initialled by the proper persons. The Act distinctly provided that any alteration sh-mld be initialled by the Chairman and Clerk, whereas in this case the amendments were initialled by the Chairman and another member cf the Board- Mr Parnell else took exception on technical grounds to the demand for rates served on the defender t.—At th ; s stage Mr Wilding said that if the Bench ruled that the notice served was sent in in its present form, (several words were erased) he could not ask for a judgment—The Magistrate so ruled.—Plaintiff nonsuited. DRUNKENNESS.

A first offender, charged with drunkenness, was mulcted in the usual penalty, “fife shilling and costs,” with the alternative of 24 hours imprisonment ALLEGED LAKCKNY. Charles Pratt, barman at the Somerset Hotel, for whom Mr W lding appeared, was charged with the larceny of a one pound note, the property of M 7. Duggan. The informant deposed that en the day

before the Hoot Club races he came into

Ashburton He had a cheque for £2los in his pjssedon. He changed the cheque at Mr*Alcorn’s and bought goods to the value *of seven shillings. He stayed at the Central Hotsl tiat night, Oo the following day he got si cheque for nine pounds. The cheque was given him in the Somerset Hotel by the drawer. Witness changed It in the hotel. He had then about £ll in his possession. He gave £1 away For soma charitable purpose and “shouted" a good deal of the remainder. The accused was in the bar; witness remembered getting change out of several pound notes after paying for drink Witness could not remember how many notes he changed as he got drunk. When witness went home * the people at the Central Hotel told him ha had £2 11s in his pockets.” Witness did not remember himself what amount he had, because ha was drunk He believed he was at the Somerset Hotel about four hours and at the end of that time he was taken home by two men.—By Mr Wilding Witiess was not anxious to bring the case. He did not know who gave inform.tion to the police.—P. Woodhall said he was at the Somerset Hotel with Duggan about August 26. Saw him changing pound notes; Duggan wai under the Influence of liquor. While, la. this condition he “shooed” five drlnk».>»ott 3 gau gave the barman two pound notes. The barman gave 17s 6d as change. Witness said to the barman that he had made a good transaction. The barman replied “ Oh that’s all right. He (meaning Duggan) will come in to-morrow 1 fly blown ’ having spent all his money, and want a drink.” In addition, he said that men bften came and stopped three or four days and one thing helped the other.— By Mr Wilding : Witness bad some of the drinks shouted by Duggan, Witness had a strong head and could take a lot of beer. Witness Lad been drank. Witness was not drunk on that occasion ; he did not “see donb’e.” Duggan “shouted” for witness four times and witness “ shouted " for a man who was with him once. Witness did not drink all this liquor. At the time witness did not imagine the man was being robbed; wlinesa’ remarks about a “ good transaction’' only had reference to Duggan being a good customer. Witness went in the next day to get a drink which had been paid for by Dnggan while drunk on the previous day. On the following day witness did not say in the presence of accused and some other men that he knew nothing about what occurred on the previous d»y. He did not say that it was Welsh who said Duggan gave accused two notes. He did not recollect ever saying such a thing.—Thomas Welsh corroborated the evidence of the last witness. Both notes were put in the lilt.—Duggan recalled said that about a

wujU agu h-.< a.ik.,l the birm a for the note in qaestlon. TSt bar* man replied that he would sbowe give witness a note that tue one Irma him. Witness said he woald believe the barman’s explanation as soon as Pratt and Woodhall.—Mr Wilding submitted there was no case to answer. If Pratt had a note belonging to Duggan tbs latter ooald have his remedy in a civil action—The Magistrate said he would like to hear some evidence for the defence. —John Williams said that he saw Duggan give the money to the barman• Ha only gave him one note and not two as alleged by former witnesses. Ha was nearer the bar than the other two witnesses. They were under the Influence of liquor. When Duggan came to the barman to aak tor the money Walsh and Woodhall want by and Doggan oalled to them to come in. The latter eame In foot said he knew nothing beyond what Welsh had said. The barman then sent to the door and called 'Welsh, who then came in and said he bad bean nnder the impression that Duggan had given two notes.—William Haynes deposed that be bad seen Dngg&n pay the banana one note. If he bad given two witness would have noticed it—This waa all the evidence.—The Magistrate said he could not convict. The ease he characterised as a most extraordinaryjone. Information dismissed. POWDKB MOKKSTB.

Hubert Johns and Lloyd Harrold two boya previously before the coart on • charged of larceny were charged with s ealing 200 rounds of ammonllloa, the property of W. St Q. Douglas, Captain of the Ashburton Rifle Volunteers. Bath accused pleaded not guilty, each throwing the blame on the other. Captain Douglas gave evidence ae to ownership of the property. T Hayes, Color-Sergant of the Rifles stated fjpU he found the magazine of the Rifles had keen tampered with. He identified the wrapping of one of the packages—James Leltch gave evidence as to the quantity of ammunition in the mag»sine—-Thofnas Bradford said that on August 24 he saw the accused on horseback coming' across the riverbed from tbs rifle basts. They were carrying something like, a box in a bag. Witness found carriages In the river-bed after the boys had passed over. —George WJUis said that about two weeks ago he heard powder beiog exploded fat; a gravel pit. Ha aaa both accused lighting tussocks and go raa and throwing something in which exploded. Abonl a quarter of an hour afterwards witness bea’d Johns say to the other boy that they had better hide “ the thing ” or they would be found out. When they bad gone away witness went to the place end found a box of car ridges concealed under the soil. Witness told hie father about the matter.—Constable Berner also gave evidence—Both the boys told voluable stories about finding the box of ammuniti >n- The father cf the boy Harrold made a lengthy statement with regard to his son end Mrs Johns also addressed the Court on her sou’s behalf.—Johns waa ordered to be imprisoned for 24 hours, and during that time receive 12 strokes with a birch-rod and then that hs be committed to the Indnstral School at Burnham for three years. —Harrold wse ordered to be Imprisoned and kept to hard labor for aix weeks The Court then rose.