ASHBURTON-THURSDAY.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1843, 17 May 1888, Page 3

ASHBURTON-THURSDAY.

(Before Captain Wray, R.M.) DRUNKENNESS John Staploton w.ia charged with being helplessly d;unk. It appeared that he gavo himaolf np at the Police Station the other rl;iy ea being m a efcata of delirium tremens, Hia case, which waa not a v*ry bud one, had been merijcally treated. — Accused " supposed he had been drunk." — Tha accuaed wai ordered to pty expenses, Kinuuning to 14a 61, In default 48 hotra' im<nfs:>:>iEu;it Henry McD >n ■■ul, who rlbo " supposed" he had been druuk, whs charged with drankennoßß at the Railway ■ Station. Fined 20* or 48 hoarH. SHEEP ACT. John Stevens was charged on the Information of Reginald Foster, Sheep Inspector., with being the owner of 200 sheep infected with Jioe and which were m the Tinwald saleyarda. A fiae of 20i was inflicted. Samuel Mulllna, for a Blm'lar offanoe, wao fined m a like penalty, 0. T, Dudley was charged with being the owner of 500 aheep infeoted with lice. — The offonoe was admitted, but it waa orged m extenuation that it was intended to dip the Bheep after the sale.— Mr Foater said that the offence was bringing the sheep Into the saleyarda, and the rf ason theße cases were being now brought wna to protect owners who bad dipped their sheep A floe of 203 ani oosts was inflicted. A charge against James Osborne was dismlaeed, as the sheep had been dipped a few days previously, and it was no fault of defendant that they were infeoted. CIVIL OASES. (Before Capt Wray, K.M.; and Mr D. Thomas, |J.P.) L. Mar key v J. MoOrenor, claim £5 5a. — Mr Outhberteon for plaintiff—Portion of tho amount had been paid, and jadgmant waa given for the balance. Morgan and Hlbba v G. Freeman, claim £58 !3s lid,— Judgment for plaintiff by default. D Wilson v the lnhnbitanln cf the Wakanal Road District and the Bonrd thereof. Mr Wilding appeared for plaintiff, and oeked for the adjournment of the case to the 31st ins'anu— Adjournment, granted. ABhburton Publishing Oompsny v E, W. Oaborne, claim £5 10j8i. — Judgment by default for plaintiff. J. 11. Stephens v G. Parkin, Benr., judgment summons, £9 4q _ Mr Caygill for judgment creditor — Order made for amount to be paid m weekly instalments of 10?, m defuult 14 daya' imprisonment J. Moynihan v N, Fitzgerald, claim £41 6b 51,— Mr Crisp for plaintiff, Mr Willing for defendant. — The circumstances of thh case were somewhat peculiar. In February, 1880, plaintiff got a judgment against defendant for £62 8s 6i. Portion of the amount was paid a considerable time sub equent to the judgment, and another portion later still. Interest on these amounts at 8 per oont per annum for ihe> time they remained unpaid waa claimed, also a balance of £4, making the amount now sued for —Tho Olerk of the Court gave evidono^ aa to a multitude of negotiations, through the Court, between plaintiff and defendant. — John jioynihan, the plaintiff, said defendant had frequently offered to pay the judgment, and witnees iherefore allowed it to stand over. Defendant on more than one occasion promised to pay Bank interest on the money. — By Mr Wilding : Gave Mr Campbell authority to settle the claim Did not expressly iu struct Csmpbell to clam interest Witness wanted interoat aa he thought he was entitled to it. — This was plaintiff's oase. — Mr Wilding moved for a nonsuit, aa the documents produced by the Cierk of the Court showed there waa no claim, and m addition plaintiffs Instructions to Campbell put him out of Court. Beaidep, no consideration on the part of plaintiff f>r the Interest claimed had been ohown, — Mr Ori<p submitted that the fact of the money having been allowed to stand over so long was m itself consideration. He went on to argue that the claim was a perfectly legitimate one. — Tho Magistrate said that it seemed to him there wa3 no cause of notion. He had never heard of such a case before ; and the whole tenor of the Resident Magistrates Act was against it. That Act showed how judgments should bo enforced, and provided certain remedies. This action went outside the Act altogether.— Mr Orisp aocopted a noaault. Oiiar'ea Lawrence v F, H. von if'choen':berg, claim £25. — Mr Purne'l for plaintiff, Mr Crisp foe defendant. — Oharlea Lawrence, photographer, eald that for a >tne time paot he had been engaged m devising a sew camera front, and he had employed Beveral persons to make the necessary partß. Firat ernpl* yed Sohoeneberg about tha end of January, to make the wood of the camera front. Gave him cardboard patterns and written directions. Defendant executed the work, and was paid for it, witness finding the materials. Subsequently engaged him a second time ; defendant did the work and was paid. Went to defendant a third time, witness having made some alterations m his invention. Took defendant a brass diso and spring which witness had had made. Also toftk some wood and patterns of the work wanted. The patterns produced by dbfendant were not those given to defendrnt, but appeared to be copies. When defendant daw the patterns he said the thing was perfect, and witness would be able to sell it; Defendant had to do the woodwork, and wai to b 8 p*ld m the ordinary way. As the brass spring did not please witness he want to Mr Murray to have one made. Witness took tho braes dlec to Mr Murray for guidance m making tha spring. Some time BuVs^quently Mr Murray came to witness and told him something, m coDsaqmnoe of which witness went to defendant the next day. Wltneßa asked what was the matter, and defendant said that if he did not come to hlB terms he (defendant-) would patent the thing himself. Witness waa astonished and asked what ho meant by terms. Defendant said that his terms wore that he should get half tha profit and have the sole right of making the woodwork, Ha also said that he had written to defendant. When witness get he me he found the following letter : - " Mr Lawrenc-i —^ir ; lie photo^raphlo apparatus, I hud c <me to Mr Murray the watchmaker to fetch the articles belonging to the same, to finish It, and Mr Murray insisted on finishing the instrument himself, however, not to wi/ surprise, as 1 had aunpioion from the very time yon mentioned Mr Murray to me that ho Bhould finish It himself, This 1 had never expected from you from the beginning, at all events I have secured myself and I ohall treat you now the same way you wanted to treat mo aud I hava fiuiehed tho articles, but I will give you a ohanco, however, and will not do you out, of your share altogether. If you ooma forward within 48 hours to a Bettleimut cay £100 sterling, cash for my share, and £100 m £50 three monthly bills you can have the inatrnment as your own property, and I will back out of It altogether. I remind you again, 48 hoars lime and no longer, or else 1 will have it patented aa my own property and Invention." Defendant had nothing to do In the matter whatever, beyond bqlug a paid workman. Subsequent to receiving the lettor, witness went to defendant anc demanded the disc and woodwork, bu Schooneberg would not give them up, Aloo received a post card from defendan m reference to his *' alalm." Defendan came to witness a day or bo afterward? and aaked him to go to his lawyer's to slgi an agreement about the affair, Wltnea 1 refuood this very cool demand. Wltnea had. been put to muoh expenee and laoon

vpnlenco through defendant detaining the ai oleeJ— By Mr Gilep: Th re web not a lnJo fda;» of In the Inv«ntiou. Wl^nes denied that it wai arranged that h« and ("eft-ndant &lv u!d share — Robert Murra- . said that ha had been employed by Mr L»wre cc to make a aprlng for a photographic camera. Te| wltneaa gave details of what he cii. The' brass rlfso was brought to witness by Mr , Lawrence to work upon. fr'ubs*qut-ntly ] defendant oaoia to witness's ehoo, Aod asked to sue the disn. After so-ue oouverRation, ib'choeuaberg a Id he would 'ake I the dino. Wiineea told dofeadint I hat. if he did ho would, be piven m chars* 1 Scbnei eW-j said the disc was bia, ad he would not be swindled outof it. Ho then went oat of the shop, and beforeonmmu^l eating with.the polloe witness told Mr Law renoe. — John Murray gave evidence, — T Gates, o»blnet-maker, said, that he had been engaged by Mr Ltvrrenoe, prior to Sohoeneberg'fl advent, to make a oamera front.— Thfa wan plaintiffs oaio, Mr Orfsp oalled F. H. Sohneneberg, cabinetmaker, who eald that p'alntiff had lieen to hfs place a numbec of timed about oanaeras. Made one on the old pr'nolple for plaintiff Subsequently wltneaa eoggeated several Improvementa and agreed with plaintiff if it oonld be perfected to patent It. Plaintiff agreed aay lot? they might" ra»ko a fortune out of It " Defendant olaimod the inveudou to be quit" his own, and went into a number of technical details as to Us oonstr'uoiloo The arrangement betweea Lawrence aod dt fan (ant wia that the thing should be patented by them, that witness should be th 6 sole manufacturer, anyone else making it ' to be fined £50." It was aho to be taken to the Melbourne Exhibition. The defendant gave a very lengthy ye slon of the affair — Mrs Sohoeneberg said she was present at some of the interviews between her husband and Mr Lawrouoa. The patent was to be between them. Tae invention had not be6n perfected at that time, and they agreed that should they peifeot it they were to share eqaally, and Sohoeneberg was to be the sole manafaoturer of the wood- work. — This was the oase for the deienoe. — Counsel addressed th« Court. — The Magistrate said that the question oi! right of patent was not for the Court to decide, doubtless it would be settled by the patent officer. The Beuch, however, were of opinion that defendant had no right to retain the artioleß and an order waß made for theii return. Defendant was ordered to paj ooate. Struthetß v Druey, claim— £6 9a 7d. Oase adjournod. The Court then roen.