AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume I, Issue 84, 8 May 1877, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

AN EXTRAORDINARY CASE.

Friday, May 4, 1877. (Before Justin Aylmer, Esq., R.M. and his

Worship the Mayor.)

H. G; WATKINS V.. T. ADAMS. This was an. action to recover the sum of £40 135., being amount claimed for goods supplied to defendant's goddaughter. The claim formerly stood at £77 Bs. 9£d., but plaintiff elected to strike out certain articles of jewelry supplied to Miss Henderson in order to bring the action within the jurisdiction of the Court. The sum of, 13s. 6d. was paid into Court, and defendant's counsel pleaded not indebted for the balance.

Mr. Nalder appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. J. S. Williams, of Christchurch, for defendant.

H. G. Watkins deposed : lam carrying on the business of a storekeeper at Akaroa. I have supplied defendant with goods for some years. Up to the present time, no dispute has arisen with regard to the payment of his account.

Witness here referred to his books for the date upon which the items in the bill had been supplied, and cited the 25th April of hist year as the date upon which the first entry in the account was made.

Mr. Williams challenged the accuracy of the account, as the first item in his client's -bill was charged on the 25th May. The Bench took a note of the objection. H. G. Watkins continued: The two pictures were omitted to be charged in a former account settled by Mrs. Adams, but were charged in the next bill rendered. On June 15th I supplied .Margaret Henderson, or Adams, who I believe is an adopted daughter of defendants, with goods. The entries between the 22nd and 29th of June are in my son's handwriting, and were supplied by him. Mr. Williams objected to plaintiff swearing that these goods were supplied by his son. Mr. Nalder trusted that his learned friend would not interfere with the business of the Court. Plaintiff continued : On the 12th July I supplied a petticoat to Margaret for Mrs. Adams, which was taken away and returned, and sent for again. It was a black satin petticoat; that item being sold by myself. The. flowers, crochet, two nightdresses, and the two chemises were served by. my wife. Margaret received everything charged in the bill. On the 14th I supplied a cape, 305.; two pairs of gloves, two pairs of men's drawers, the latter being bought for Mr. Adams. On the 19th July Margaret informed me that the goods supplied were for her " pa," not" ma." Mr. Williams : Do you mean to say, Mr." Watkins, that it would take three yards of stuff to go round a lady's waist. Plaintiff: Some ladies' waists are larger than others. The items, blue tie, china basket, 3 tins marmalade, two dozen eggs, anchova paste, and 16 yards alpacca were supplied by me to Margaret. Mrs. Adams fondled the antimacassar. Mr. Williams: What do you mean by fondling? Plaintiff : She admired it and caressed it. On August Ist I saw my wife supply two boxes of figs, three yards of silk, and two dozen of eggs.

Mr. Williams : To whom. • Plaintiff: Margaret. The two pounds of butter and prayer book obtained on the 11th were not supplied by me. August 14th I supplied one dozen handkerchiefs ; 15th, eggs and sealing wax ; (Laughter.) 17th, print, merino, and flannel; 19th, I saw the goods delivered by my wife. Mr. Williams :'To whom? Plaintiff : Margaret. 29th, salmon. I have been in the habit of supplying Mr. Adams through his servants with goods, and have always been paid. He never gave me notice not to supply his wife with goods. I consider all the goods supplied by me necessaries. The first account rendered by me to Adams contained all the items of jewelry, consisting of rings. The Bench : That evidence is not material. Mr. Williams contended that it was piost material to his case. H. G. Watkins, cross-examined by Mr. Williams : On the 22nd of June I supplied one gold brooch, value £1, to Margaret; on the 28th, in addition to the articles charged in account, I supplied one gold cross and one gold brooch, valued respectively ss. and 18s.; 29th, gold chain, 455. ; July 3rd, chain, 225. 6d. ; locket, 255. ; Bth, ring, 15s. ; 10th, ring, 305.; 17th, ring, 305.; 18th, ring, 325. 6d. ; '22nd, watch, £5 ss. ; 28th, ring, 325. Gd.; ring, 15s. ; ling, 325. 6d ; locket, 195.; August Ist, picture, 345. ; locket, 10s. 6d. ; two pictures, Bs. 6d. each ; one picture, 17s. 6d. : August Bth, pair of ear-rings, 355. 6d.; 14th, ear-rings, 50s. ; 17th, picture, 6s. Gd.; 29th, gold ring, 30s. ; 31st, ring, 255. ; September 7th, brooch, 42s 6d. ;' gold watch. £5 ss. These were all the articles, in addition to those sued for, which I supplied. The amount of those articles brings the bill up to £81 14s. 2d.; two pairs of ear-rings returned have to be credited. I struck out the items of jewelry.from the account because they might not be considered necessaries. The reason why I did not deliver the bill personally to Mr. Adams was. because I never had the pleasure of such a case before. I have acted under the advice of my solicitors. Mr. Williams contended that section 23 of the Resident Magistrate's Act, 1866, rendered it necessary for the plaintiff to deliver the bill in full, and note at the foot that he abandoned such a sum. The plaintiff, however, thought necessary to cull out certain articles in order to throw him (Mr. Williams,) out of Court. Under the section quoted, he held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction, and that it was a case for a jury. He trusted that the Bench would take a note of the objection, and if overruled, he intended to appeal. Mr. Nalder said that his client had no claim against Mr. Adams for the jewelry. The question now in dispute was the correctness of the bill before the Court. If his learned friend intended taking the course he had done, he held that he should not have paid any money into Court, thereby admitting the jurisdiction of this Court. We have our remedy against Miss Henderson for the jewelry, and for that reason we have abandoned all claim against Adams. The Bench would see that the claim had not been split, but that two separate actions were contemplated. The Bench: The goods were delivered to Margaret Henderson, but booked to Adams. Mr. Nalder: For the sake of argument the goods may have been ordered by William Montgomery, or A. Brown, with instructions to book to Adams. The Bench would allow the evidence to proceed, and would reserve the point raised by Mr. Williams. H. G. Watkins, cross-examined by Mr. Williams, continued : Margaret Henderson produced no written authority to debit the goods to defendant's account. I know her as servant or daughter to defendant. She had been in the habit of getting goods before from me. They were household necessaries, and were paid for by Mrs. Adams. She called for her quarter's account, took it away, and subsequently paid it. I never saw defendant in the matter. No suspicion was raised in my mind until I heard of the gifts made by Maggie, and the reported robbery at defendant's house. Maggie called and got the account. I subsequently posted the account to defendant. The nature of his reply was, that he owed for nothing except the woolpacks. I think the articles which I supplied necessary to a person occupying the position of Mr. Adams. Margaret got the articles for her " pa " and " ma," but it is very hard for me to say who are her " pa" and " ma." I did not know that she had a " pa." (Roars of laughter.) On all occasions she told me to book the goods selected by her to her " pa." She never told me to book the goods to Adams. I have been in the habit for years of booking goods to Adams. I have heard that Adams is Maggie's " pa" by adoption. 1 really cannot say whose daughter she is, as report varies. I cannot say whether her mother is living. Possibly she may be the daughter of Mrs. Ifferson, but I do not know.

Mr.Nalder: I suppose, Mr. Watkins, i is a wise child that knows its own father (Laughter).

Mr. Williams : But, I presume it is not so difficult for a child to know its own mother. (Laughter). H. G. Watkins continued : She goes by two names—Maggie Henderson, alias Adams. When 1 book articles, it is not my custom to inform people till their accounts are rendered. None of the articles were furnished to defendant's wife. I am in the habit of delivering my accounts quarterly. By direction, I kept the house account separately, but made out both the private and house account at the same time. I was asked by Mrs. Adams to divide the accounts. I delivered the bill to Maggie. I cannot remember whether Mr. Adams got anything at my store between May and July. I do not remember seeing Mr. Adams in my shop during the time I was supplying Maggie with the jewelry, &c. On the 21st November Adams got goods at my store. I do not consider that it would have been prudent on my part to have informed him of the amount of goods Maggie had been receiving in his name. Mr. Nalder: It is not usual on the part of tradespeople to do so. Mr._ Williams : Then they should do so Plaintiff, under cross-examination by Mr. Williams, continued: If defendant were to get into the box and swear that he was in my etore on the 22nd July, 1876, I would not believe him. I cannot swear who got the eggs and blacking, but as Maggie was supplied with everything, I have no doubt she got them. To' my knowledge defendant never got eggs in his life in my shop. I should estimate Adams's income at from £400 to £500 a year. He is a wool-grower, an insurance

agent, clerk to the Road Board, and owner of the Criterion Hotel. The house he lives in is a little better than a pig-stye. I lived a short time myself in the same pigstye. It was a more respectable-looking place ten years ago. . I think I saw it grow up, but the lapse of time has not improved it. I did not call it a pigstye ; I said it was little better than one. The rooms are very nicely furnished, containing everything requisite for the comfort of man. There are pianos, and all sorts.of other little things required in a household. I do not know whether the chairs have bottoms in them. I merely looked round the rooms without criticising the articles of furniture. Ido not know whether there are any chairs in the house. I believe defendant does not keep any servants. Ido not know what salary he receives from the Road Board. Defendant does not ride about in a carriage. He may keep a man servant. 1 have no reason to suppose that he keeps a groom to look after his horse. Maggie Henderson did not drive up to my store in a conveyance. She rides in Cobb's coach occasionally. I cannot swear unless I was under the bed whether Mrs. Adams wore any of the articles purchased from me in the presence of her husband. By the Bench : The articles booked to the household account consisted of groceries, &c. Such items as clothing, drapery, jewelry, &c, went into the private account. Mrs. Adams always paid the accounts. The request to keep the accounts separate never raised any suspicion in my mind. By Mr. Nalder: It is customary to debit married women with goods. I am too much of a gentleman to criticise articles of furniture in a person's room, or even the bottoms of chairs. Mr. Williams : But I always notice the bottoms of chairs before sitting down. Henry William Daniel Watkins, examined by Mr. Nalder : lam the son of the plaintiff in this case. The goods enumerated were served by me to Margaret Adams. On the 22nd of June I supplied her with a cookery book. Cross-examined by Mr. Williams: Maggie is the adopted daughter of defendant. She did not request me to book the goods to Adams. Ido not know whether she delivered the goods supplied to her to Mr. Adams. She did not produce a written authority. I booked the goods to Adams as a matter of custom. By Mr. Nalder : It is not usual on the part of tradespeople to follow ladies to see where they take their purchases. By the Bench : Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Adams instructed me to book the goods to them. James Daly, examined by Mr. Nalder : lam a storekeeper in Akaroa. I have done business with Mr. Adams for some years. Mr. Nalder: Maggie Henderson was always recognised by you as defendant's servant or agent, when you supplied her with goods ? Mr. Williams would object to the question being put. It would be admitted that Adams had dealt with Daly, and had always paid his account. The Bench considered the question a pertinent one. Supposing a servant was in the habit of taking a horse to a blacksmith to be shod for his employer, and in the absence of any notice being given by the employer to the blacksmith to discontinue shoeing, the blacksmith would be able to lecover, although the servant had ceased to be employed. James Daly continued : I have been in the habit of supplying goods generally required by a family to Maggie Henderson on defendant's account. The goods chiefly consisted of drapery and groceries. The last account rendered by me to defendant was paid. Mr. Adams informed me that he had no knowledge of certain goods charged in the account being obtained. I consented to take them back, and he subsequently delivered them to me. I do not know defendant's position in life. He has a son. I have been paid for similar items charged in Watkins's bill. I always understood Maggie was a companion to Mrs. Adams ; in fact her adopted daughter. Cross-examined by Mr. Williams: Defendant mentioned to me that he was not aware there was such a heavy account standing against him. My account against him hadbeen running for 18 months. I be- , lieve I furnished all necessary articles for defendant's use during the time the account was running. Ido not believe there was any extravagance exercised. Among the articies returned by derendant to me was a black silk dress. Defendant told me that I should not have allowed his wife to get so much without first acquainting him. Considering the quantity of goods that I supplied Adams with, I should say that the goods obtained at Watkin's were quite unnecessary.

By Mr. Nalder: Mr. Adams never gave me notice not to trust his wife. I never saw such like notice advertised by him. James Wood, examined by Mr. Nalder : I am a storekeeper, carrying on business at Akaroa. I have been in the halfit of supplying Adams with goods. They were either delivered to Adams, or his adopted daughter—Miss Margaret. The goods were principally drapery. The account, amounting to some £103 odd, was paid by Adams. The articles supplied to Margaret were principally ladies garments, such as silks, velvets, dress'pieces; and white shirts. Previous to my seeding in the account, I stopped Adams in the street, and Informed him of the amount- Margaret had contracted. No notice has ever been given me by defendant not to supply Margaret or his wife with goods. Ido not know defendant's means, but I had no hesitation in supplying him with goods. When the account reached so high an amount, I considered it my duty to speak to him. He said that he had no knowledge of the existence of such an account. This would be about 12 months ago. No goods have been obtained at my store since the settlement of the account. I delivered the account to Adams personally.

Cross-examined by Mr. Williams: Adams contracted a debt with me for doors, &c, before I supplied the goods to Margaret. I believe the goods she obtained must have been with the knowledge of defendant, as no things could come into my house without my knowing. I have no doubt defendant would be surprised at receiving such an account from Watkins. I told Adams at the time I spoke to him about,his account by whom the goods were obtained, but he made no remark. Margaret. Henderson instructed me to book the goods to Adams, but she gave no order to that j effect. I cannot say whether she specially requested the goods to be booked, as my employees supplied them. I do not remember supplying her with any particular I

item, as I was not always present. lam positive that she requested the goods to be booked, but did not hear her say so. By the Bench: I would not have given Margaret Henderson credit for £80 worth of goods on her own account. I believe Mrs. Adams paid some small accounts. There was a ball dress made by one of our girls for Mrs. Adams.

Mr. Nalder applied for an adjournment to give an opportunity of subpoenaing Miss Duncan, but perhaps another witness could be taken if Mr, Wood would take a subpoena in his hand and serve it upon Miss Duncan.

Mr. Wood: I will do nothing of the sort. You can let your dirty work come through the proper channel.

The Bench saw no* reason to grant an adjournment. Plaintiff's counsel could apply for the subpoena, and it would be served without delay.

Richard Brooke, examined by Mr. Nalder : lam a habitmaker. I have made some goods for Mrs. Adams. I have made a riding-jacket for Miss Adams. The sum charged by Watkins for the satin petticoat is very reasonable. Miss Adams would take a full-sized chemise. (Prolonged laughter).

Mr. Nalder : I have no desire to to make you blush, but did you take any measure for the lady's drawers. (Roars of laughter).

Richard Brooke : I took no measure for the drawers, but judging from the price charged, I should say that the linen of of which they were made was of very superiour quality, and they should wear well. (Continued laughter.) I consider that the prices charged for the various articles enumerated in the bill are fair and reasonable. I have never regarded Miss Adams in the light of a servant. I have always looked upon her as a companion or an adopted daughter. I was paid by Mrs. Adams for the work I did.

Cross-examined by Mr. Williams : I do " not t ,deal in chimeses or ladies' drawers' j (roars of laughter), but I was in the habit of doing so for 11 years in Lyttelton. Mr. Adams was accustomed to getting goods ' from me, and always paid for them with- ;" out asking. Miss Adams paid me in cash for the jacket. I consider all the goods charged by Mr. Watkins are necessaries. By Mr. Nalder : Mr. Adams has never given me notice not to supply goods. Stephen Watkins, examined by Mr. Nalder: I am a fruiterer, I remember c seeing Maggie Henderson purchase and 0 take away some French merino from my brother's store. I swear distinctly that I 3 - saw her upon several occasions take goods s away, but I cannot, except in the one instance, say what they were. : Cross-examined by Mr. Williams : I did c not hear her say to whom the merino c was to be booked. I cannot say where it went. s William Adams, examined by Mr. Nalder: s I am a hotelkeeper, and rent the Criterion r Hotel. I do not know who Mrs. Adams was before she was married. I was quite ;- a child in England—six years of age— i when she married. To the best of my be--1 lief, Mr. Adams owns the Criterion Hotel. Cross-examined by Mr. Williams: I a never saw Mrs. Adams handsomely dressed s in the presence of her husband. She genea really wears ordinary black silk dresses, but there was nothing in her dress to raise a '. suspicion of extravagance. \ By Mr. Nalder: I have seen her exa pensively dressed when her fhusband was 3 not present—it was principally jewelry. Mr. Nalder here applied for an adjournment to subpoena Mrs. Adams and Maggie 1 Henderson. The Bench : Thekevidence no doubt is 1 most important. Mr. Williams would first like to hear 3 the Bench's decision upon the point he ' raised. k Mr. Nalder : We intend to take a second j! action against Miss Henderson. The Bench: There can be no second ' action without a mandamus from a Judge - 1 of the Supreme Court. The Bench has 3 thought over the matter, and as the plainly tiff has divided the cause of action, a se--3 cond summons cannot now be issued. The } goods in the first instance were all booked • against Mr. Adams. " Mr. Nalder: Then we will. forego our " claim against" Henderson. Mr. Williams: The usual way is to abandon a certain amount, but not to cull out certain articles. It had been shown by r Mr Daly that he had supplied defendant's wife with sufficient articles for her wants. 5 The Bench considered that it would be > a hard rule to cant off a lump sum, and • lose the balance. [ Mr. Williams said that plaintiff culled 5 goods from the account to the amount of ; £27 8s 9-Jd but could have sued for £50. ■ He relied upon the Act cited for the [ decision. J Tbe Bench held that it would be an extraordinary hard case to follow the course '■ suggested by Mr. Williams. The majority • of things supplied might have happened to be necessaries of life. The point raised would be overruled. j Mr. Williams lodged a written objection, '■ which the Bench took note of, and the 1 Court adjourned for an hour. On resuming, the first witness called, Avas Margaret Henderson, examined by Mr. Nalder, deposed : 1., am living with Mr. T. Adams: I have bought groceries for Mr. Adams: I am 21 years of age: I have never bought anything from Mr. Watkin's store for Mrs. Adams, for myself, nor Mr. Adams. If Mr. Watkins and his eon have sworn that I have obtained goods, drapery, or jewellry at their store, they have sworn falsely. I never purchased a piece of French merino at Mr. Watkin's store for anyone : I know Mr. John Delamaine : I know Master William Montgomery: I know Mr. Redmond Browne. If I have had any of Mr. Watkin's goods, they have been brought to me by Masters Browne and Montgomery. Mr. Inwood here intimated that he had been instructed to watch the case on behalf of Mr. Montgomery. Witness continued : I know Miss Thornton, daughter of Mr. George Thornton, late Provincial Engineer. I made her a : present of a small ring : Mrs. Adams gave j mothering to send to Miss Thornton: I don't know where the ring came from : i Mrs. Adams might be able to explain : I i never gave anything to Mr. John Dela- . maine: I sent him a lock of my hair : My i father told me that he is 22 years of age : i I was engaged to be married to him. He wrote love letters to me, but they have all 1 been stolen out of the house between two i and threo months ago. There was never a i fire to burn down the house. I- never 1 bought two water-color paintings from Mr. 1 Watkins for myself, Mr. Adams, or any - one else. I do not know much about Mr. i Robertshaw. I have never written, or I ]

caused any letter to have been written to him. I have made him a present of honey. I have also given him with a little black currant jelly. I know Mrs. Oborn. I never sent her anything to be made. up. 1 know Miss Kearney. I never employed her to make anything up for me. The dress was not. made for my papa. I or Mrs. Adams wore it. I have bought groceries from Mr. Daly. I never bought groceries from any other person but Mr. Daly. I never bought goods from Messrs. Watkins and Wood on my account, Mr. Adams, or any other person. I bought no drapery from Mr. Daly. If Mr. Daly has stated that I have, he has made a false statement. I have been to Mr. Brooke's to have a jacket tried on. I know Mr. G. Black, the draper. I never taken goods to him to be disposed of. I have never taken a gold watch to Mrs, or Miss Kearney, to be disposed of. I know Mr. Breitmeyer, of German Bay. I know Mr. Dawber. I have never taken any goods to them. Cross-examined by Mr. Inwood, on behalf of Mr. Montgomery : I have stated that young Montgomery made me some presents. They consisted of dresses and numerous things. Master Montgomery presented them to me on behalf of other young men. He brought books, pictures, 2 rings, with stones. I don't know where they were purchased. They were supposed to come from John Delamaine. I don't know where he got them. He did not send a watch, nor any ear-rings. The earrings were given to me by two different gentlemen. I think it was in last May or June. They were introduced to me as Messrs. Toswell and Taylor. I have the pictures that were given to me by Master Montgomery on behalf of Messrs. Gould and Whitefoord. By the Bench. I was introduced to Mr.-. Whitefoord. He is an elderly gentleman, with grey hair. Mr. Nalder: Do you mean Mr. Whitefoord, the Resident Magistrate of Kaiapoi. Witness : I do not know. The Bench: Mr. Whitefoord will feel flattered when he sees his description in print. . Examined by Mr. Nalder: The pictures represent two views— the coloured one was two children on a bridge ; the other was a man driving some cattle ; a third, was a view of trees, a church, and some figures. These were brought to me by young Montgomery. I never saw the pictures previously. I am perfectly certain I never saw any of these three pictures in Akaroa. I am quite convinced Master Mongomery gave me the pictures in May or June last. The pictures produced and marked A, B, C, are the pictures brought to the house by Master Montgomery. H. G. Watkins re-called : I identify the pictures produced, marked A, B, C, as those purchased at uiy store by Maggie Henderson, and taken away by her. Elllen Adams, wife of defendant, examined by Mr. Nalder, deposed : Miss Henderson is my god-daughter. She was in the habit of going to Mr. Daly's shop for groceries. I have not been at Watkin's store since May last. I have never bought any jewelry from Mr. Watkins. I never bought or saw a black petticoat at Watkins. If Mr. Watkins swore that I inspected one at his store, he has sworn falsely. I know Mr. ' Black,. the linen draper. I have placed a Maltese cross, a small coloured locket, and I think a small cross with him for sale. I know Mrs. Oborn. I have placed articles in her hands for sale, consisting of a small square locket, and a ring, and a brooch. I know Mr. Billens. I have put nothing in his hands for sale, but have bought articles from him. I gave these things to Black and Oborn to pay another's debt. Master Fred. Delamaine had used my name, and got goods, and I gave the jewelry in part payment for the goods obtained by Delamaine. I know Mrs. Kearney, Mr. Breitmeyer, and Mr. Dawber. I never placed anything in their hands for sale. At the time I married Mr. Adams, I had no private estate. The jewelry that I left with Oborn and Black was given to Master Montgomery at my house by Margaret

Henderson,

Cross-examined by Mr. Inwood: The jewelry was brought by Masters Montgomery and Browne to my house. I should think their ages are from 12 to 14 years. I never saw the jewelry or any portion of it before they brought it. They never brought a watch, ear-rings, or bracelet. They brought a locket, two chains, and a small necklet and brooch. I have lost the whole of these articles, with the exception of one ring, one brooch, and a locket which I placed "in Mrs. Oborn's hands to pay Delamaine's bill. Money was received in an envelope directed to Margaret, with a request to pay the debts contracted in my name at Oborn's and Black's. A little cross came in an anonymous letter to Margaret. These things were received in June and August. Master Montgomery was staying at WagstafFs. The boys were j at school. Montgomery was here two or three months after Mr. Wiggins left. I am quite sure that it was in June and August, 1876, that Montgomery was' here. By Mr. Williams: I sawthe bill rendered by Mr. Watkins. I never purchased any of the articles. I have never had occasion to purchase those goods. If I had obtained goods to the extent of Mr. Watkin's bill, I would have been going beyond my husband's means. I don't keep a servant. My husband's income does not exceed £400 per year. He has always allowed me to have every necessary. I have never worn any of the articles of drapery. When the articles of jewelry came, they were shown to Mr. Adams as presents to Maggie Henderson from the friends of Mr. Delamaine. Mr. Adams thoroughly believed what I told him, and I also believe they were presents to Maggie Henderson. I never dealt with Mr. Daly for drapery, with the exception of small articles, and a dress now and then. I have never bought jewelry from Daly. By the 1 Bench:! know about a silk dress being taken from me by Mr. Adams and handed to Mr. Daly on the occasion of the settlement of an account. The dress piece was 16 yards long, but I cannot say from whom I bought it. Master Montgomery and Brown brought all the goods to my house. In addition to their presents, several parcels arrived by the steamers. The goods returned by Mr. Adams consisted of dress pieces of merinoes, muslins, prints, books, and a sewing machine.

James Daly re-called: Mr. Adams returned to me dress pieces of merinoes, muslins, and a sewing machine ordered by, and supplied to, Maggie Henderson on behalf of Mr. Adams, in the usual. way of business.

Catherine Duncan : I am milliner and saleswoman at Wood Bros. I have served Maggie Henderson with dress materials

and booka on behalf of Mr. T. Adams. Mrs. Adamk -was never present. Gross-examined by Mr. Williams : Margaret Henderkm, in reply to a question from me, instructed me to book the goods to Mr. Adam's abcount. Margaret Henderson generally paid ca*sh for goods supplied to her from our till about 12 months ago when she began to run up an account. My suspicions were aroused, and I spoke to Mr. Wood on the matter. Maggie Henderson could have done quite well without the goods she ordered from our store. It

would require a man with a very large mr come tosupportsuch a class of expenditure. The goods contained in Wood Bros, bill were su plied within the space Of two months.

The Court then adjourned till the following morning.

Saturday, May 5. James Annand, bootmaker, examined byMr. Nalder : I recollect seeing" Miss Henderson buying two gold rings and a locket from Mr. Watkins. Mrs. Adams was not present. It must have been in July or August last year. lam a Borough Councillor.

Cross-examined by Mr. Williams : I did not follow Miss Henderson to see where she went with the goods. She did not pay for them. I do not know to whom the rings were booked. Grecian Black, examined by Mr. Nalder : I know Mrs. Adams. She offered to sell me jewelry, consisting of crosses and lockets. Mrs. Adams owed me money. I sent an account through the post to Mr, Adams. I have dealt separate!y with Mr. and Mrs. Adams, and Maggie Henderson. I always booked the goods obtained by Maggie to Mr. Adams. I never booked goods to Mrs Adams. I might have sent goods purchased by Mr. Adams home. I have delivered goods personally at my shop to Mrs. Adams and Maggie Henderson. Mr. Adams generally paid for the goods ordered by himself. I made an account, amounting to £16, out. Mr. Adams gave me a cheque for the items supplied to himself, and remarked " that he could not at that time pay the balance, but would do| so at some future date." Mrs. Adams came to pay me £7 on account, and subsequently- she asked me to take some jewelry on account of some goods I supplied to Maggie. I said that she could leave them, and I would try and sell them for her. She said although I am paying for the things, not one of them entered ray house. They were all burnt. Mrs. Adams never left'a watch with me. Cross-examined by Mr. Williams: Mr. Adams always paid me for things purchased by him by cheque. Maggie Henderson never instructed me to book the goods to Mr. Adams. I thought Mr. Adams would pay for them. The goods sold consisted of drapery and clothing. I thought she was rather extravagant. I did not let the bill go too far. I sent a bill in to Mr. Adams for £15. Mr. Adams paid for the items purchased by himself, and made a remark that he did not know anything about the other items in the bill. Mrs. Adams offered me the jewelry for sale on the 24th January. The oross and locket produced are the same offered by Mrs. Adams to sell for her. H. G. Watkins re-called : I do not recognise either of the two articles produced. I cannot swear to the cross as the one sold to Maggie. I sold a similar cross at ss. to her. G. Black, continued : I took those particular articles from Mrs. Adams on account of the debt she was due me. She was always well dressed when she came to my shop. The goods enumerated in the bill were supplied to Maggie Henderson. I simply booked them to Mr. Adams. I neither had written or verbal authority from Mr. Adams to do so. Cross-examined by Mr. Nalder : I stopped Mr. Adams in the street and informed him the state of his account. Ido not think Mr. Adams instructed me not to supply any more goods, but Mrs. Adams warned me not to trust Maggie Henderson without a written order. Maggie was present when Mrs. Adams instructed me not to give further credit without an order.

By the Bench: I never saw young Delamaine in my shop. There is no account standing in my books against his name. If it has been sworn so, it is false. By Mr. Inwood? Neither Masters Browne nor Montgomery have obtained goods from me. Ido not know either of them. By Mr. Nalder: Ido not know Mr. Whitefoord. Mr. Williams here made an application to the Bench to be allowed to produce Mrs. Adams and Maggie. He said that there was abundance of proof that the goods were supplied, while there was only the bare statement of Maggie that they were not. She was now prepared to admit the . fact. ■;■'■■ The Bench : Then you are prepared to state that they told a falsehood. Mr. Williams: Yes. Mr. Nalder held that the rectificationshould have been made at the time, and that the witnesses could not be freed from the responsibility of their statements. Mr. Williams contended that there had been no prosecution ordered, and that there was yet time to make amends. It was the practice, he believed, to call witnesses before filing the information, and ask whether they had sworn falsely. He now wished to re-call the two witnesses in question, and request them to unsay what they said. He knew of cases in the Supreme Court where witnesses had been re-called. The Bench: No doubt they were persons of nervous temperament and of bad memory. But this was beyond a slip or a slight mistake—it appears to be a frightful case of perjury. Mr. Nalder said that Miss Hendersoa did not make the statements thoughtlessly. It was a most deliberate ease of perjury and conspiracy. Mr. Williams: But that fact does not in, the least affect the liability of my client Mr. Nalder: It does. Mr. Williams : Are you prepared to say that |my client is in a conspiracy with the two ladies ? There is, no doubt, plenty of evidence before the Court to commit the two ladies for perjury. The Bench failed to see how the retraction of the statements could purge the charge of perjury. If they now got into the box to correct their statements, it would not stay action. If there was one crime worse than : another, it was that of perjury. Perhaps Mr. Williams would cite authorities in support of his application. *

Mr. Williams said that if the Magistrates were not satisfied, they could take a note, and if the prosecution for perjury followed, the Judge would no doubt be satisfied with the validity of his application, If the prosecution could be stayed,

the witnesses were willing to return to Court, and admit that they were wrong. Mr. Nalder said that it was evident that his learned friend was in a "mess," and would suggest that the witnesses be allowed to come in under protestMr. Williams said that he was in no " mess," but simply wished to protect the females from the responsibility of their actions.

The Bench could not see how they could wink at the case. It seemed more like a planned perjury, and every word that emanated from their lips was perjury. Mr. Williams held that if the legal point raised by him at the outset of the case had been upheld by the Bench, the two women would not have been called, and consequently there would have been no case. If the case had been proceeded with in another way, it would have been demurred to, and the Judge would have settled it in Chambers. The point raised by him should have been settled at the time, but it was reserved, and the case allowed to proceed. The Bench said that the better plan would be for the witnesses to come into Court", and state what they had to say, but the Court would not make any pledge. Mr. Williams : Then I'will not call them.

The Bench would offer no objection to their coming in, so that if Mr. Williams's law was good on the subject, they would be all right, and if bad, they would be all wrong. If Mr. Williams was desirous of giving the matter consideration, a short adjournment would be granted. Mr. Williams suggested an hour's adjournment, which was granted, and on the Court resuming, Mr. Williams intimated that it would not benefit his clients by having them re-called, and would allow the case to proceed.

Eliza Kearney, examined by Mr. Nalder: I am a dressmaker. I know Maggie Henderson, and have worked for her. She has left jewelry and goods in my hands for sale, consisting of one waterproof cloak, one underskirt, one calico underskirt, one little cloak or cape, one maroon dress, together with trimmings ; two gold watches, and one gold ring. I sold one watch, a tweed waterproof coat, and a piece of merino. The ring and the little cloak were taken back by Maggie. The other watch and the calico skirt are still in my possession. I cannot exactly fix the time when these things were left with me for sale —it was about October last. I obtained £5 for the watch that I sold. I produce the other. Mrs. Adams has not been in the habit of calling upon me for years. It was Maggie that brought me the things enumerated. I have not seen Mrs. Adams for some time. I have made up several dresses lately. The bodies were the same/ but I made a distinction in the length of the skirts, believing they were intended to be worn by different persons. I do not believe that Maggie has been in the habit of flaunting about the streets. Maggie furnished me with the instructions to make up the dresses. I cannot say where the materials came from. I received payment for part of my work from Maggie. Cross-examined by Mr. Williams : It was about twelve months ago that Maggie first gave me instructions to make up dresses for her. I cannct fix the number of dresses which I have made for her. She always informed me that the work was for her " ma." She did not instruct me to charge the work to Mr. Adams. Gentlemen do not come much in my way in that line. It is usual on my part to measure for a dress. I measured Maggie, and made up the dresses for her. I did not measure Mrs Adams; She is the same make and breadth as Maggie. I think she is rather taller than Maggie.. Ido not keep a book like a tailor for measurements. It is usual to try on dresses on ladies. I did not try them on Mrs. Adams. Maggfo did not tell me that the jewelry was hers-. She instructed me to sell it for " ma." I know Mrs. Adams is not her mamma. Mr. Adams never left any articles with me. The two gold watches were left with me on different dates. I am quite sure that they were not left with me before October last. I sold one watch to my sister for £5. Maggie Henderson priced the goods to me at the time she left them. The maroon dress piece contained about nine yards. I returned the articles mentioned to Maggie, gave Mrs. Adams credit for the goods which I sold, and handed Maggie the balance to give to Mrs. Adams. Ido not know if Maggie accounted to Mrs. Adams for the money. Maggie gave me no receipt. I cannot say why I paid Maggie the money without taking areceipt. I gave her £3 out of the £5, and was requested by Maggie to placo 'the £2 to Mrs. Adams's credit. I consider that the dresses which I made would not have been luxuries for two persons. I cannot say whether Mrs. Adams- keeps much company, or is in the habit of dressing for dinner. Maggie's apparel was alwaya respectable according to the geason. I cannot describe Mrs Adams style of dress. lam not quite sure how many dresses I made up for Maggie. I cannot say how long a merino dress •would last. Ido not wear many, as I cannot afford them. If I wore one for a' year it would no doubt be pretty shabby at the end of that time. I cannot say how many dresses Maggie wore in the year. Merino is a good wearing texture. I cannot say how many dresses . I made up for Maggie. I have made up a dozen merino, muslin, and print dresses in the year for her. Four or five those of dresses may have been merino. I could not wear out four merino dresses in a year. I do not know whether it would be possible for Maggie to do so. One of the dresses that I made for Maggie was a ball dress. It is not necessary to have a ball dress to kee,p life'in one's body, but I would not consider it a luxury.

By Mr. Nalder : The dozen dresses were made, as I supposed, for Mrs. Adams and Miss Henderson.

Mr. Nalder.—My learned friend has put a rather unusual question to you, Miss Kearney, viz—is it usual for ladies to go to dinner dressed. Now I want to ask you is it usual for them to' go to dinner undressed. (The Court here became convulsed with laughter).

Miss Kearney declined to give an answer.

Mr. Williams.—This shows, Mr. Nalder, that you have never mixed in the best society. Mr. Nalder. —Then I am proud that I have never done so.'

Mr. Williams : The witness has stated that she measured Maggie. Perhaps she would like to measure me.

Witness, continued: Maggie said that I could take £6 instead of £7 — the price first named—for the watch produced. H. G. Watkins, re-called : The watch produced by Miss Kearney, numbered 8,555 is the one that I last sold to Maggie Henderson. Mr. Williams mentioned that none of the articles charged in the account were produced, except those items abandoned by Mr. Watkins. The Bench: The evidencelately brought forward was no doubt intended to shake the credibility of Mrs Adams and Maggie Henderson.

Thomas Adams : I am the defendant in this case. I have had a bill delivered tome by Mr. Watkins, amounting to £77 8s 9d-|d. I have given no authority for any of the items, except three woolpacks. I returned the bill immediately after receiving it, with a note that 1 knew nothing about it, and was not indebted. I never authorised Maggie to contract the account, either verbally or written. I have dealt very little at Mr. Watkin's. Mr. Daly said to me that he had no doubt it would take my breath away to see his account against me. Since I and Wood's bills I have been in the habit of getting my groceries from the hotel, and avoided getting anything elsewhere. I understood some gentlemen were in the habit ot making presents to Maggie. I paid Mr. Wood's bill because I understood that the things had been ordered by some gentlemen, and given as presents to Maggie. Both Mrs. Adams and Maggie informed me that many items in Wood's bill were presents to Maggie. I told Maggie that I did not like her accepting those things from the boys without making some return. I told her that I had two foals in the paddock, and that she could give them to the boys. I paid the accounts in order, as I supposed, to save the names of the boys, and to spare them the pain and trouble that an exposure would bring about. I have always regarded Maggie as a most frugal girl. The goods enumerated in the £80 account were quite unnecessary, as she had everything that she required according to my station in life. This is an unexceptional claim made against me. My accounts have been invariably rendered to me quarterly. The only account of any moment which I was in the habit of contracting was with Mr. Daly, which amounted to about £20 per quarter. He had been in the habit of supplying me with sufficient goods to keep me going. The items in Watkin's bill were quite unnecessary for my requirements. My income is somewhere approaching £300 a-year. I keep no servants, nor carriage. I have a wheelbarrow. My wife has no property in her own right. She received about £100 at the deatlr of her mother. I have seen some pictures in my house. I was told that they were brought by two young gentlemen. I did not see any goods left at my house. If I had been aware that Maggie bought those goods on my account, I most certainly would have returned them. I believe I am well known in the district, and most people know more about my business than Ido myself. I think the fact of Messrs Daly, Wood, and Watkins, allowing auch accounts to be run up against me by a girl, is most unwarrantable. Watkins allowed his account to run on for nine months. I certainly would have advertised Maggie Henderson had 1 known that she was in the habit of obtaining goods of such character on my account. I never saw my wife wearing jewelry.

Cross-examined by Mr. Nalder: I should have taken steps to have Maggie's credit stopped had I known that she was in the habit of ordering such goods. I admit Maggie obtained goods at Daly's on my behalf. Maggie is a companion to Mrs. Adams, or a, housekeeper, but our house is a very humble one. I have paid both Daly's and Wood's accounts. My impression was that Maggie had stated the truth to me about the goods. I have not given notice to the different tradesmen not to supply Maggie with goods. My impression was that as so many statements were made by different persons contradicting Mrs. Adam's and Maggie's evidence, the two women's affidavits would carry very little weight. I saw Mr. Montgomery in Christchurch. I considered it my duty to seek his advice. He told me that he could not acknowledge any liability on behalf of his son, as he believed that the boy could not possibly have had anything to do with the matter. We have a fire in our house every day, but have never had an " incendiary" one. I believe my house has been robbed. It has been represented to me that articles of clothing have been stolen. The Criterion Hotel brings me in a rental of £150 per year. This closed the evidence in the case.

Mr. Nalder, in addressing the Court, contended that he had proved most satisfactory the sale and delivery of the goods to defendant, his wife, or servant. The whole of the goods sold were necessaries,

and suitable to defendant's position in life. It had been shown that no notice was given, verbally or written, to plaintiff not to trust defendant's wife or servant. Mrs. Adams and servant had been in the habit of purchasing goods from other tradesmen, and the defendant had always paid the debts contracted by them. That the defendant is a gentleman of considerable private property, but his wife had ho separate estate. The evidence showed that defendant had returned goods supplied to his-wife to Mr Daly Daly. He (Mr Nalder) held that he most conclusively proyed the facts of the case. He concluded by citing numerous cases bearing on the point, from Chitty on Contracts, Addison on Contracts, Smith's Leading Cases, and Fisher's Digest.

Mr. Williams contended that there was not a tittle of evidence to connect defendant or his wife with the articles purchased by Henderson. The whole of the evidence went to show that Maggie Henderson got the goods entirely upon her own responsibility, and without the knowledge of defendant. The plaintiff or other tradesmen had never been asked to book the goods delivered to Henderson to Adams, but did so as a matter of course. In support of his plea he would cite the best legal authorities bearing upon Jhe subject of the liability of a person for luxuries supplied to a wife or minor without the consent of the husband, parent, or guardian. From the evidence, it had not been shown that plaintiff had defendant's authority to supply these goods, or that they were necessaries. Mr. Paly said that he had supplied more than sufficient goods for defendant's family requirements. He then resd copious extracts from authorities, and quoted the following cases on behalf of defendant :— Montague v. Benedict, Smith's Leading Cases, vol ii, folio 429. Bentley v. Griffin, Tauntons Keports, vol v, folio 356. Montague v. Espiniasse, Carrington and Payne's Reports, vol I, folio 502. Atkyus v. Carwood, Carrington and Payne's Reports, vol vii, folio 756. Denny and another v. Sarjeant, Carrington and Payne's Reports, vol vi, folio 419. Blackburn v. MacKay, 1. c. &p. i. S. P. Flack v. Tollemache, 1. c. &p. 5. Mortimer v. Wright, 6 m andw, 482, and 4 jur. 465. Holfe v. Abbot, 6 c. & p. 286. Rolfe v. Abbot, 6 c. &j p. 286. Simpson v. Robertson, i Esp. 17. Andivws v. Garrett, 6 c. b. w. s. 262.

The Court requested the authorities quoted to be handed up, for consideration, and intimated that the verdict would be given at 6 o'clock p.m.

The Court adjourned at & p.m., and on resuming at six,

The Bench, in giving judgment, stated that they had come to the decision to dismiss the claim as against Mr. Adams. They looked upon it that Margaret Henderson was an agent and servant of Mrs. Adams, and not of Mr. Adams. They mainly arrived at their verdict from the admission made by Mr. Watkins in his evidence—that he had been asked by Mrs. Adams to keep two separate accounts, thus showing that plaintiff was in the habit of supplying things clandestinely and unnecessary to defendant's wife. They failed to understand how a man could keep a private account without having his suspicion aroused. The case stood—whether Mr. Adams was liable for the payment of the goods purchased by Mrs. Adam's agent;— Henderson. They held that he was not, as he had provided her with all necessaries. The case w r ould therefore be dismissed, with costs. The sum of £3 3s would be allowed Mr. Williams for professional fee, and £5 5s travelling expenses.

Mr. Nalder gave notice of his intention to appeal.

The Bench ordered an information to be laid against Mrs. Adams and Miss Henderson for perjury.

Mr. Williams asked the Bench to proceed with the case immediately, as if the women were arrested that night, they might run the risk of being locked up all day Sunday.

The Bench said that the matter was now in the hands of the police.

Mr. Williams asked the sergeant to give him an idea whether he intended making the arrests that night, as it was possible the Resident Magistrate might be at church on Sunday, and he would be debarred from obtaining bail.

Sergeant Ramsay said that he would communicate nothing in open Court.

The Court was then adjourned

Monday, May 7, 1877. (Before Justin Aylmer, Esq., R.M., and the Mayor.) perjury.

Margaret Henderson and Ellen Adams were charged with committing wilful and corrupt perjury in the case of Watkins v. Adams, heard in the Resident Magistrate's Court, Akaroa, on May 4.

Mr. Williams appeared to defend the accused.

Sergeant Ramsay stated that the accused had only been arrested about half-an-hour previous to the sitting of the Court, and that he had no opportunity of subpoenaing the witnesses in the case. He applied for a remand till the following day.

Mr. Williams said that it was evident the police would not have made the arrests unless they were convinced that there was sufficient evidence.

The Bench considered that there was hardly time for the police to get the case up, and that great latitude had been shown bj deferring the arrest from Saturday night to the last moment. There was another difficulty likely to arise. The case would have to be heard before other justices, as they would most likely be called as witnesses.

Mr. Williams desired the Bench to

note the same objection raised by him in the case of Watkins v. Adams, and quoted from Roscow on Evidence, page 709. If he should be able to prove that the Court had no jurisdiction, the perjury case would, as a matter of course, fall to the ground. The Bench granted an adjournment for eight days. Bail was allowed in two sureties of £50 each, and Mr. T. Adams in £100. Messrs Joseph Bates and William Adams became bondsmen. Mr. Williams asked the Bench to repeat the nature of their verdict, as he was under the impression that they had dismissed the case. The verdict must have been a nonsuit, or a verdict for plaintiff or defendant. The Bench replied that the judgment was for defendant, with costs. The Court then adjourned.