AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume I, Issue 70, 20 March 1877, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, March 16, 1877. (Before Justin Ayhner, Esq., R.M.)

SAULO V. LAMBERT. To recover the sum of £1, for a stingray sold by plaintiff to defendant. Defendant pleaded not indebted, and contended that he purchased the iish from Mr. Wascoe on certain conditions. Plaintiff deposed that he caught a stingray and that Mr. Lambertcame to him and made him an offer. The next day he came again, and ottered £1 for the iish, with an additional ss. for packing. Subsequently defendant came and took away the lish, and when presented with the bill said he would not pay. Cross-examined by defendant,—You bought the fish from inc. I told you that. I would see Wascoe first before closing with you. By"the Bench.—l did not hand defendant the iish. He came and took'it himself. I have received no money for the iish. John Wascoe deposed. —I consider it wrong on the part of defendant not to pay plain tin: for the iish. It I were to say all 1 know about the transaction, the museum proprietors would figure badly before the public. Joe informed me that Lambert had offered him £1 for the sfcingr-ay, and I advised him to take it. I remember having a conversation with Lambert to the effect that it lie would not buy the lish I should. Lambert told me that he had offered Joe ss. more if he would pack the fish in bags. I wa . not the owner of the lish. George Lambert deposed —On the 13th j oO February I heard that there was a sting-ray caught, and I asked plaintiff if he would like to sell it, at the same time offering him a £1 for it. He replied that he could not accept the offer, as Wascoe had telegraphed to Christchurch about its disposal.' I told Joe that he could have a £1 for it, but as I was going iishing, I could not wait. I then left and went to the end of the town, where I met Wascoe in a trap. I spoke to him about the lish, and told him that Joe could not sell it till he had seen him. YVascoe then offered to sell it to me for £1. I then said I would buy it, providing that Wascoe had not telegraphed to the museum, but if he had, I would have nothing to do with it; and if lie deceived me, I would be sure to find it out. Wascoe assured me that he had not telegraphed, and I then concluded the purchase of the lish from him, at the same time instructing him to get it ready for the coach, and I would give an additional ss. After the arrival of the fish at the museum, I received the letter produced from Mr. Haast, declining to take the fish. I then telegraphed to him, enquiring if Wascoe had telegraphed, offering the sting-ray for sale, and received a reply (produced) that he had on Febiuary 13, about noon, received a telegram from Wascoe, re the sale of the iish. That is the man who says the fish did not belong to him, I say that the whole affair was a deliberate swindle. By the Bench.—l told Wascoe distinctly that I would have nothing to do with the fish if he had telegraphed to Christchurch. James Aiming.—l heard n conversation between Wascoe and Lambert about the fish, and Lambert offered to buy it on condition that Wascoe had not telegraphed to the museum, at the same time stating that if he had there would be no use making a bargain about it, and that if Wascoe was misleading him, he would be bound to find it out. By Mr. Wascoe.—l was at the cart, and heard you say that 3"OU had neither sent or written a telegram that day. Mr. Wascoe said that Lambert, had informed him that he would get from £5 to £10 for the iish it he sent it up, whereas if another person wero to forward it, it would simply be received with thanks. The telegram was signed by me. I would have given iho.Cl to Jo;; for (he lish. — Barry corroborated the evidence of James Aiming. The Bench decided to reserve judgment till next Court da}'. SUNCKELL V. ANNING. This was an action to recover the sum of £7, being amount claimed for the value of a gun in defendant's possession, alleged to be purchased with tho firm's money previous to the dissolution of partnership between plaintiff and defendant. Mr. Inwood appeared for plaintiff. Defendant pleaded not indebted. J. Sunckell deposed.—Nicholas Columbus offered the gun for sale in the shop, and I offered to throw him Yankee grab whether I would give him £4 or £5 for it. We went across to the Criterion Hotel, where Aiming said ho would throw him. He did so, anil won it. I took the £4 10s. out of partnership money, and paid it to Nicholas for the gum It was bought during the time that defendant and I were in partnership. Mr. Inwood here put in the deed of part, nership under which plaintiff purchased al the book debts and property belonging to the late firm. J. Sunckell continued.—l applied to defendant for possession of the gun about a fortnight ago. He said that he would not part with it, Cross-examined by defendant.—l believe I got no receipt with the gun. You threw the dice, and I paid for the gun. I did not get possession of the gun at the time. Some few days after tlie transaction, I met Columbus with the gun, and instructed him to leave it at the shop, remarking that Fred was there. There was no receipt given that I am aware of. By the Bench. —When the partnership was dissolved, I bought tlie whole of the book debts and goods. James Aiming deposed.—Columbus asked me to buy a gun in Sunckeli's shop. I said that I would give him £4 for it if he would include the shot belt and powder flask. He then said that he .would throw me Yankee grab whether I would give him £4 or £5 for it. I consented, and threw, and won it for £4. I asked for a receipt, which I wrote out, and Columbus signed his name across it. I have had the gun in my possession ever since. Cross-examined by Mr. Inwood.—The gun was paid for with my own money. 1 swear positively that the money came out of my own pocket, I gave Columbus a j £5 note at Miss Johnstons bar, receiving

£1 change. Ido not know whether Miss Johuston heard the transaction. I have a witness who is prepared to say that he heard Columbus tell me that I purchased the gun from him. The Bench, to plaintiff.—Why did you not seek to obtain possession of the gun at the dissolution. Plaintiff.—l thought if I asked for it defendant would give it up. The Bench.—lt is a pity Columbus is not in the district, his evidence would settle the case at once. Plaintiff applied for an adjournment, to secure the attendance of Columbus from Christchurch. The case was adjourned for a fortnight. Monday, March 19, 1877. refusing to do duty. Alfred Opie, who had been locked up on a charge of refusing to do duty as a seaman on board the schooner Waihopai, was discharged, the captain declining to prosecute, as the accused had been bailed out, and since " turned to." RIOTOUS BEHAVIOUR. W. Thomas was charged by the police with riotous behaviour in the Criterion Hotel on the night of the 17th March. Constable Ruffle deposed that at about 9 o'clock on the evening of tlie 17th March, he saw defendant lighting in the passage of the Criterion Hotel, with a person named Kenny. Ec ordered him to desist, and with that Kenny tlwew him outside. Witness then brought defendant to the lockup. By defendant.—You Avere fighting, and I saw you strike at Kenny. William Adams deposed.—About halfpast S o'clock on Saturday evening last, Thomas entered my hotel as usual in a beastly state of drink. He called for dlinks, and my wife refused to serve him. He then asked me how much I was indebted to him, at the same time using most disgusting language. He then commenced to quarrel with Kenny, and struck him. I do not wish to punish the man, but I desire to keep him out of my house. A witness, .named Wright, deposed that defendant was not drunk, but had indulged in a little strong drink, and that he did not hear him make use of obscene language during the time he was in his company at Adams' Hotel, on Saturday evening last. In cross-examination, witness said that he would not call a man drunk until lie was not able to stand. Sergeant Ramsay said that defendant was like a good many more, respectable when sober, but very noisy in drink There was a previous conviction against him. OBSCENE LANGUAGE. The same defendant was charged with using obscene language in the Criterion Hotel on the 17th inst. The Bench fined defendant 20s. in'each case ; or in default 48 hours imprisonment on each charge. The Court then adjourned.