AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume I, Issue 82, 1 May 1877, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, April 27, 1877. (Before Justin Aylmer, Esq., R.M.) DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. P. Georghan was brought up, charged by Constable Ruffle with being drunk and disorderly. Constable Ruffle deposed that the prisoner had been about the town for the past few weeks in a state of semi-intoxication, and that on Thursday evening last he arrested him near Mr. Daly's store, tumbling about dangerous to himself and others. After his arrest the prisoner resisted violently.

Sergeant Ramsay said that this was another instance of those lambing-down cases. The prisoner had spent about £100 within the past five weeks. He lived at Roderigues, Maderia Hotel, and frequented the other hotels but little. During the time he |had been in Akaroa he had been kept in a constant state of muddle.

The Bench requested the Sergeant to take a note of the case and bring it before the next licensing meeting-, when Roderigues applied for his license. Fined twenty shillings, or in default, twenty-four hours imprisonment. BARKER V. STANBURY. On this case being called, the defendants son stated that his father was ill in bed, and asked for an adjournment till that day week. His Avorship granted the adjournment as desired, on the- expenses of plaintiff and one witness, 30s. being at once paid into Court. The Bench reserved the question of professional fees until the case was heard. T. W. BARKER V. J. BUNNY. Claim for £1 12s. 6d., goods supplied. Judgment by consent, with costs. T. W. BARKER V. BRIGGS. Claim for £3 155., goods supplied. Judgment by consent, with costs.

E. MAIN V. T. W. BARKER. This was an action to recover the sum of £26 55., due by Barker as the representative of the late firm of Fry and Barker, £23 10s. wages, and £3 15s. cash received by Barker, on account of Mam, for a saddle. . Mr. Inwood appeared for defendant. Plaintiff, examined by Mr. Inwood, said that the last settlement was up to 14th October last.. Since that date he had received money by way of loan from Mr. Fry, one of the partners, but not as wages. On 25th October he received £5, and on 21st November last £3. About same date he did not receive a sum of £12 entered against him. He would swear so. The | £5, £3, and the £12 entries made the sum i of £20 for which credit was given in the account. He received the. £20 cheque about Bth January last from Mr. Fry. He had often borrowed money from Barker, and Barker from him, but had always paid it back. On 23rd December last recollected getting the loan of £5 from Barker, but did not receive it as wages, though wages were due to him. The reason he borrowed the sum in question was, that he did not recognise Barker, senior, as his master, the Barker of the firm of Fry and Barker, being Barker, junior. This five pounds were repaid a few days afterwards to Barker in the bar of his hotel; he thought Mrs Barker was present. He had no special reason for not applying to the firm for money when it was due to him ; would always borrow money from anyone who would lend it. By the Bench: He only borrowed the £5 on 23rd December, and repaid it to him afterwards. John Fry, examined by plaintiff, said he was, until recently, a partner of the firm of Fry and Barker, coach proprietors. Main used to drive for the firm. Recollected Main going to- Nelson Regatta, when Main asked for his account with the firm. He requested his partner Bilbey Barker to make up Main's account. He was told the balance due Main was £33 or £34, which he forgot, and not knowing how the firms account stood at the bank, he gave Main his private cheque for £20 on account.

By Mr. Inwood : Barker's son kept an account of all monies of the firm. Shown book containing entry of 25th October, £5, and of 21st November, £3 ; these entries were correct. January Bth, £20, was a wrong entry. This sum should not have been charged. The £20 cheque was drawn from his private account and produced his bank pass book to show the same. By the Bench : When Main went to Nelson the firm owed him £33 10s. In the firm's books the debit entries against Main should be £5, £3, and £12, in all £20, the sum Main gave credit for. The £10 wages from February to March, he believed

was owing. T. W. Barker, stated that the books were in Fry's possession, and handed to him to examine if correct before the partnership was closed ; he did not know the £20 cheque was signed, nor how it came to be in Fry's pass book with bank. George Hutchinson, merchant, Christchurch, deposed that he saw the books of Fry and Barker in regard to the account before the Court. Was not a professional accountant but understood accounts very well. The account had been balanced up to a date he forgot, and from that date to the week after Main ceased to drive the Pigeon Bay ooach; he made the balance due Main about £4. Only looked over the accounts to bring about an understanding between the parties, and took the sums from the book given me.

Examination continued : As to a question of custom, partners in giving cheques on their private accounts, enter up the amount against the firm in the ledger.

Bilbey Barker, examined by Mr. Inwood : I kept the accounts of the late firm. Fry knew all the entries in the book. The entries in regard to Main's account were written in by Fry's directions. He stated that the sums of £5, £3, and £12 were correct, as in books produced Mr. Fry saw entry of £20 on January Bth, at the time of the settlement in regard to the partnership and made no remark about it. Cross examined by plaintiff: Mr. Fry did not tell me merely to make a memo of the £20. As far as I recollect he told me to book it as usual. I do not know how cheque Avas drawn, only what Fry told me. Did not remember what balance I said was at your credit the morning you went to Nelson. I think it was £33 10s.

George Porter, bookkeeper, looked over the books of Fry and Barker, and made a statement of account, showing how the sum due to Main arose, and he made the balance on the other side to the extent of ss. due by Main to Barker. Remembered all the parties being in the little room off the bar one day trying to make up the account and were all puzzled. Had not seen the firm's pass book, and did not know if the cheque for £20 appeared in it. Mrs. Barker deposed to remembering her husband lending Main £5 on 23rd December last, and was sure he never paid it back. By the Bench : How do you know ? Witness: AVell not in my presence at least. John Fry, recalled, said the £12 referred to was included in the £20 cheque and so satisfied was he that the amount of wages claimed by Main was due, and that if non-suited, he would pay the amount himself.

His Worship in giving judgment said thai he thought Mr. Fry had given a fair explanation of how the account stood and that only £20 had been paid to Main. As to the loan of £5 on 23rd December the preponderance of evidence was in Barker's favour. Judgment would be for £26 5s less the. £5 lent, viz., £21 ss. and costs. H. G. WATKINS V. T. ADAMS. On this case being called, His Worship said he had received a telegram from Mr. Adams, who was in Christchurch, asking the case to be put off till that day week.

Mr. Nalder, who appeared for plaintiff, asked for the expensea of witnesses. None of the witnesses in attendance claimed expenses, and the case was adjourned for a week.