MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1351, 25 September 1886, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBURTON—FRIDAY.

[Before Mr H. 0. S. Baddeley, R.M]

The following evidence was taken in the case Cheese and Butter Factory Co v Osborne, claim £6, after we went to press yoatir lay:—

»* On resuming Mr White called William < 11 Is, who said : Was present at a meet- < g of Cheese and Butter Factory Com- i pany December 12, 1883 Heard a 1 resolution moved by Mr Orr (Mr Parne ll 1 objected to any farther evidence on this > point. A written contract in the shape i of an application by defendant to < take up shares had been handed in_ to i the Ooort. Mr White said he was going - to adduce evidence to show that the i defendant had been induced by misrepresentations to take up shares. After argument Mr White proposed to call Mr Orr, the mover of the resolution, the Magistrate reserving bis decision as to the i admissability of the evidence till the con elusion of the case.) Andrew Orr said ; He was at a meeting of the Company in December, 1883. Witness saw the resolotion purporting to be proposed by him in the minutes of that meeting He did not think the resolution .moved by him had any reference to the shareholders present. He explained the object he had In moving the resolution. He said the Chairman had stated that if all the share holders would take op thennallotted shares pro rata, the Company would be able to carry on, but If they did not do so the matter wonld fall to the ground —By Mr Parnell : Witness did not hear any statement made that any resolution passed at the meeting would not bind any of the absent shareholders ; but he bad no doubt such a statement was made. Witness was not very certain as to what the words of the resolution were. Witness was one of the applicants for shares, and had paid. By the Bench ; When the resolution was put to the meeting he did not think the words “ shareholders present ” were mentioned; ho was not quite certain.— D. H. Brown said that he was at the meeting In December, 1883 A resolution was passed to the effjot “ that all the shareholders take up the unallotted shares pro rata ” In pursuance of that he made application for three shares. Witness did not alter the document, but made | an addition to it (Mr White: What was your object in making the addition. Witness : Well it saved me £ls laughter.) By Mr Purnell : Something was said at the meeting about the .shareholders present being unable to hind those absent from the meeting. Witness did "ot know if Mr Ort’s resolution was altered in consequence. Witness thought Mr Orr’s resolution wan in writing, and although Id did not bind those present it was understood at the meeting tha* the directors and Secretary would see the other shareholders as soon as possible and endeavor to get them to take up shares.—By Mr White : The purport of what was said at the meeting was that none of the shareholders were to be liable unless the whole of the nnalloted share* were taken up, and witness’ application for shares was made on that understanding.—William Wills was present at the meeting in December 1883. Heard the resolution proposed by Mr Andrew Orr ; Us purport was that the shareholders were to take up the whole of the unaMotted shares pro rata Heard the Chairman put the motion to the meeting. Witness took up sharei on the understanding that the terms cf tha resolution won’d be adhered to. Had a conversation with Mr Tucker about the shares in tha Arcade on the Saturday before tha date fixed lor hearing objections. He said ho had seen the whole affair about the unallotted shares was a swindle from the start. Witness said he did not intend to pay for his.— Witness was cross-examined by Mr Purnf 11 at some length.—David Thomas heard the resolution proposed by Mr A. Orr, It was to the effect that shares be taken up pro rata. It was contemplated that the shares should be taken np by the directors and such of the shareholders as were agreeable. It was decided that unless the whole of the unallotted shares were taken op there would be no liability on account of those taken np, J, Paul waa present at the meeting in 1883 in his capacity as reporter for the Press. Ho reported the reaolut ; on pa««ed word for ward. It was as follows : “That the shareho’ders take np prorata the remaining 256 shares.”—A, J. Houston, Alfred Grey. Samuel Holland, Jnbn Cowan, James Heron, and W B. Andorson gave evidence. —J. G. Restoll, recalled by Mr White, said he did not know whether all the unallotted shares were taken np nor the number of shareholders in the Company.—Mr Purnell called rebu'fnsr evidence aa follows : John Orr, Chairman of the Ashburton Cheese and Butter Factory Company in 1883, aald the resolution recorded In the minutes with reference to unallotted shares was the one he pot to the meeting. He believed the resolution proposed by Mr A. Orr was in wrltbg, and he believed that from the time it was moved to the time it vas carried it was altered more than once. Witness was Chairman of the Company in 1884. The ruinates of the 1883 meeting were confirmed in the usual manner. At the meeting in quesMon witness made the remark that if the whole of the unallotted shares were not taken up it would rest with the Directors whether the Company would continue operations. He did not tall the meeting that if tha whole number cf unallotted shares were not taken nn those who had taken up shares would not be liable. All the unallotted shares were not taken up; if thov had been it wonld not have affected Mr Osborne. The Directors became liable for a large sum of money, and they had paid off out of their own pockets a good number of liabilities. With regard to the set-off, the witness said that nearly the whole of one season's make of cheese was sent to London. From the price which wa* being obtained the Company could not afford to pay more than 3d per gallon for milk, and a deputation of farmers was notified to that effect, nnlfifs the company got a reduction in the freight charges, when the farmers would get the benefit. The price of cheese became so low in the London market that after that season the o- - m pany sent no more cheese Home, and therefore the proposed reduction came to nothing. Mr Osborne never made any claim on the Company for the extra id. —Witness was cross-examined by Mr White and re examined by Mr Parnell at aome length —Robert Alcorn waa a resent at a meeting on December 13, 1883 He remembered Mr A. Orr proposing a mo'ion, which witness seconded. The resolution in the minute book contained the purport of the one witness seconded, but he could not say if it was couched la the exact terms. Mr J. Orr did not sav at the meeting that if the whole of the shares were not taken np, no one would be liable. Ho said it

would rest with the Directors, if the who<o of the shares were not taken up, to de L ermine whether the Company should be carried on. Witness was particular in helping Mr A. Orr to draw out the resolution before he seconded It.— Joseph Clark said that the resolution appearing in the Company’s minute book was that passed at the meeting of the Oompmy held on December 13, 1883 H Friedlsnder gave similar evidence. — This was ell the evidence —Counsel on j both sides having add eased tb® Court | at great length, Mr H. Frled’acdar was 1 asked several questions regarding a ' balance sheet of the Oomnany which had been put in by Mr White.—Toe j Magistrate reserved his decision ■ till October J. *

Gba .ij r. 0 le—dam, £s.—Mr Or|-o r p’ai"* ff. Mr Osy-iq for defendant. 'see urned until Tuesday At 8 p,m the Court adjourned till 9. On resuming' the following business mi ransieted Cheese ard Batter Factory v. Houston. -Case adjourned f> r a fortnight Milne v Henry, daim £i7- 'Mr OtygiU or plaintiff, Mr White for defendant, fhls was a esse in which the plaintiff I'aimed under section 139 of the Licensing tct the r ß oovsry of £57, money which t was alleged had been lost while In ;he house of the defendant, who fa an lotolkeeper. It was alleged that the lock if the room to which the plaintiff was ihown was ia a defective condition, in jonsfquonce of which in the morning the slain till found his money was gone.— lames Milne, lessee of the Mount Semen soal mine, said: Remembered Feb. 5. Was at Christchurch tlut day. Got £69 LOi 6d that day. Settled a small aoeonnt in Chris'church, and left by the 4.15 p.m. train for Ashburton, arriving here in the - evening. Went to Mr Henry’s Ashburton Hotel, where ha stayed that evening. Walked abrnt town, and went to bed •bout 10 pm. Witness had £57 In notee and 9s 2d In small change when ha went to bed. There were two beds ia the , room. When witness was shown to the room a bed was pointed oat as the one to be occupied by him. On witness enquiring be was told a man named Bntlec occupied the other bed. When witness endeavored to secure the door until Bntler oune he found the lock was defective. Took the money from his trousers* pocket, and put it in b!s inside coat pocket, putting his coat and waistcoat between the two 'mattresses of bla bed* Woke up twice in the night, feeling all right, but when he woke a third flowlM felt very unwell. He soon got tiU right, and went to sleep. When he got up In the morning and looked for his coat be raw that it bad been shifted, and on searching for his money be found It bad gone. There was nothing noticeable about the room except that the window which bad beeneloced when witness went to bed was down when he got op in )he morning. Was sure the window was shut whan he went to bed. Went outside and saw • man named O’Grady. Told him of the loss, and at bis suggestion cared up the landlord and acquainted him of it. Also informed the*Sergeant of Police; The police went to the house with witness, but did not find the money, nor had it been found since. Would a rear he had the money before he went to bad. denoted it before he put the light out. It was gone in the morning. There ware other people staying ia the bouse. Cross-examined by Mr White : Counted the monty because he was not sore to e pound how much he bad. To'd Henry he would go for the police He replied that he could. The reason wbj the presort proceedings were not taken earlier was because witness was unable to get a capable man to look after the coal mine and serve his easterner?. Had advertised for one. Had a man now. Spoke to the lawyer a long time before. It might be about the beginning of'March. There was a roan who travelled in Ifastrain with witness from Christchurch. He went with witness to Henry’s hotel. They had tea together, and afterwards walked as far as the Somerset, bat did not go ia. They turned and walked back together This traveller slept at Henry’a that night. Did not ask him nor did ha ask witness to sleep in the same room. Believed he slept in another room opening off the same passage. He left by an early train next morning. Witness want up to the bedroom with the police, and showed them where be had placed bis clothes. Had placed the coat and wustcoat under the mattress about a foot from *h* head of th i bed. Too coat would reach nearly across the bed There was another baa on the opposite side of the room, and 'here would be a space of about two feat between them. Was a pretty heavy sleeper, but did n -t rest well when away from home. Heard no noise in the room during tio night. Did not feel anyone turning him over in the night The box of the lock of the door of the room waa off. Was not sura whether there waa a latch, but wes positive there wts no plena for the latch to catch into. Discovered this before ha went to bed. The lights were not out at the time, and other persons were up in the house Did not ask for another room whan he discovered the lock was defective. But for the fact that he was expecting Batter to come ia woald have placed the washstand against tha door. Miss Henry did not tell witness ha could have another rocm. The window could not be opened from outside without a ladder. A person opening it from inside would have to stand within a foot of witness’s head when in bed. Heard no noise In the night. Did not feel tick till ha woke the third time. The sickness went off In five or ten minutes. Believed he told some persons that he thought he had been chi 'reformed. Might have said that he believed he had been drugged, but did not recollect having done so. Went to see the traveller at the Bail way Station next morning, because everyone had suspicions of him. Iha landlord suggested to witness to do so. Saw the traveller on the train, and ha said be was sorry to bear of witness’s loea, and hoped it would be found out. Did not sap anything to the traveller because be (witness) had left the matter in the hands of the police. S.w the. policemen at the Railway Station before ape*king to the traveller, and the policeman said he had found out who the traveller waa. Recollected saying to Henry on his (witness’*) return from the station that the traveller had gone by the train, and that he (witness) believed he was concerned in it. Oould net say whether be had not also said that he believed th# traveller had hia (witness's) money with him. Thought Henry had eaid “ Surety you will have him arrested if yon have a suspicion that ha baa your, money. ” Did not recollect saying to Henry—but might have said— •* Ido not think X trill bother about it, the traveller ia away, and it will be hard to prove it now.” Paid Henry Si for tea, bed, and breakfast, apd left bidding him g ß od-by in a friendly way. Did not tee Henry again until the 13ch May on Ashburton racecourse. Never showed his money to anyone after he Ireceived it in Christchurch. Neither Henry, nor anyone in hia bouse, nor anyone in Ashburton, could possibly know that he (witness) had any money about him. It was loose in bis pocket. Did not know the traveller’s name. Talked with him in the train, but said nothing about the money. The traveller did net know that witness bad it. Was not aware that anyone else slept in the same room. When ha (witness) got up in the morning the other bed was nodiainched. Re-examined : Had never seen the traveller before. No arrangement was made to stop at the earns hotel till after they got to Ashburton. Had no liquor in Christchurch, no spirit* or beer or in Ashburton. Had some ginger beer at Christchurch and tsa at Ashburton.

Had some suspicion of the traveller whoa he went to the station In the morning, and it was in const fuence of what the policeman said that he took no atone towards having the traveller arrested. To the Magistrate : Did not treat the traveller during the day. Did not lay any information against him, because he (witness had spoken to the police. His suspicions of the traveller were removed by what ha heard from the poloe fnaed to shake hands with Henry whan be met him on the racecourse, because he (witness) thought be was the cense of the less of the money. He told O’Grady that he bad auapioion that Uenry was the min that robbed him —- Sergeant Felton said that on February 6, about 6 15 a m., the last witness o*m® **

the police station and made a complaint. In consequence, witness, in company with Constable Smart went to the Ashbarton Hotel. Saw Mr Henry, who said that he had detained all the people in the boase till witness came down. Witness knew all the men ; did not search them aa they ware all respectable, well conducted men. There was a stranger there, bnt he was not np then. Examined the room where Milne slept. Milne showed witness where he pot the coat. There was something wrong with the fastening of the door." Ashed Milne why he didn’t go to another room when be knew the fastening of the door was bad. Mr JBenry, who was present, said Mtlno had been offered another room, but he daslined to go, because his mate, Butler, was to tleep In the earns room, and he thought it would be safe. Butler did not sleep in Milne’s room that night. When witness examined the rjom, Milne pointed oot that the window was down. Milne could not identify the money. Witness took steps to ascertain the truth of Milne’a statements, and found them correct. When witness saw Milne first, he thought he had been drinking, but found out he had had nothing to drink that day or the one before. Witness had known Milne for years, and had always found him a steady man- By Mr White: There was ■bout 2tt 6in between the two beds In Milne's bedroom. Witness reached the bedroom about 6 a.m. Ho did not notice a smell of chloroform. Ttli attention was drawn to a smell In both Milne’s and the traveller’s bedrooms, bnt witness thought it was the smell of scented soap. Witness knew the smell of chloroform, having been under Its Influence several times. The effects of chloroform clung to a man for a long time after ba had been put under its influence; Witness had made enquiries as to Henry’s character, and f und it of the highest;—This was the plaintiff’s case.— Mr White called John Henry, the defendant, who said: Remembered plaintiff and a traveller coming to his house on Feb. 5. Thoy had tea together, and both appeared sober- Witness did not know cf plaintiff having a sum of money in his possession. Plaintiff and the traveller went ont after having their tea, and returned a little after nine.’ The plaintiff shortly afterwardr was shown to bod. The next morning witness fli called about six o'clock by a knock at his bedroom window. Got np and saw Milne In the backyard with O’Grady. Milne said he had been robbed during the night: Witness replied, "Oh, nonsente. 1 There’s nobody here who would rob yon.” Went upstairs with M’lne to hisraom, and searched the bed, without, however, finding any trace of the money. Witness told Milne that he must have mislaid the money, but as he insisted, witness advised him to inform the police, and directed him to the station. Witless and o*Qr»dy then went to the front door, and allowed no one to leave the premises till Milne and the police arrived. The witness gave evidence as to the boarders in the house that night, and as to the position ct the bedrooms. The lock on the bedroom door was In good order, bat there was no key. Nothing had been done tt the door or the lock since the night Milne slept in the room- The door creaked loudly when opened; All the people in the house were willing to be searched, and a'.l the rooms were gone through; Witness had never come across any trace of the money i Short'y after the t-ave’ler want t’-e folio® - Ingmorning Milne said, “ Thst traveller has gone, and I believe he has got my money with him;” Witness said, ‘‘.'-ure'y yon won’t let himgo You cm have him arrested in Tiraaru.” Milne rep’ie l that ho would rot bother about It; his money was lost, and it would le hard to prove who had it! When Milne went away he parted whh witness in a friend y manner. Witness met him on the rac< c urae in May ; went to shake hands with him, bat he said he did not know witness. He added that witness would hear from his (Milne’s) lawyer in a day or two, because he knew all about the lost money. Witness knew nothing about Milne’s money. He did not know why Butler slept in D’Grady’s room on the n’ghi it was alleged the money had been lost.—Witness was cross-examined at tome length by Mr Caygill.—Constable Smart gave evidence. He did not think the coat and waistcoat could have been palled ont without dltturbing Milne if he had not been insensible.—Margaret Henry gave evidence regarding plaintiff being offered another room than the one he occupied If he so wished.—Charles O Grady, fanner at Laurston, said he stayed at Ashburton on the night of February stb. Went to a concert with Butler, and when they returned, aa everybody was in bed, In order not to disturb people Butler slept la witness’s room. As far as witness was aware none of the inmates of the honae knew of Milne having mom y. The door of the room Milne occupied creaked loudly, and would waken any light sleeper. On May 13 Milne told witness that he was going to proceed against Henry, as be was the man who took bis money. Witness was the first man plaintiff spoke to about the loss of his money on the morning it was alleged to have teen missed, and he said then that the traveller had taken it. —William Butler also gave evidence— The plaint ff Milne was recalled by the Bench and questioned as to ths manner in which be plsc d his coat. Ooaasel on both sides addressed the' Court at some length.—The Magistrate did not think the plaintiff had laid any plot to extort money from Henry, but he was not entitled to a verdict. There was a strong suspicion that the money had been taken by the traveller, and the plaintiff should have taken action against him in order to have the matter cleared np. If a good case had been made out against the defendant, the Bench would net have hesitated to have given judgment against him, because innkeepers mast be prepared to accept the respons’bilitie. of their position. Plaintiff was nonsuited with costs, £5 10s.

(Before MrJH. Ftledlander. J P., and Mr D. Thomas, JP) Labcksy.

William Sharp was charged (1) with the larceny of a pair of boots, value 16s 6d, the property of Adam McAlister ; (2) with the larceny of a spade, value 7s 6d, the property of Otr and Co ; (3) with the larceny of a coat, value 27s 6d, the property of Hayes and Co; (4) with the larceny of |a coat, value 21s the property of A. Orr.—The accused was ordered to be imprisoned f. r six calendar months oa each of the charges, the sentences to ran fpo currently. Tbe'C jnrt rose *t 2 o’o’ock this morning.