AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 2, Issue 141, 23 November 1877, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, November 16. (Before His Worship the Mayor, and H. H. Fenton Esq., J.P.) Civil Cases.

Hooper and Co. v C. Oram. —In thvsca'se the plaintiffs sued for the value of 125 sacks which had been paid for, anc! returned to the defendant in the ordinary course of business to be replenished, and which he (defendant) had retained possession of. A. I. McGregor was called ;to give evidence as an expert as to the usu\il custom with regard to the payment foiy and return of sacks. ■, _ i, Judgemeut given for amount •claimed . with costs. . , C. BATES V L. PERHAM. This was a case to recover possession .of a mare which had been taken away bydefendant, who claimed it as his property. Mr Joynt appeared for die defendant, Mr Inwood for plaintiff.

Mr Joynt stated that there was a cross; case—Perham v Bates—to recover possesion of the progeny of the mare in, question. As the evidence in the two cases, would be the same, he would ask that they; might b heard together, which, Mr Inwood having no objection, the bench acceded to.

C. Bates deposed : I am a dairy farmer at French Farm. I bought the mare in question from W. Wright, on January sth, 1876 for £32 cash. She remained in my possession about a year and a half, when she was taken out of my paddock by Perham on the morning of September 23th, 1877. I demanded her from him. This was in the presence of witnesses, but he refused to give her up, as she belonged to him. This was on the 19fch October. Defendant had often seen the mare in my possession previously but had neverclaimed her. He came to my place with a Mr Olphert about a month before, taking the mare away, and asking to see my horses, which I refused to let him do. I had heard that defendant threaten sd to take the mare. About two years before I possessed the mare, George Wright and I were passing through Perham's land, when he took us to see the fine trade he had made with Mr Lane, of Christchurch, in place of George Brough's black horse. I swear he said he had made the trade for George Brough. ■

Cross-examined by Mr Joynt: I purchased the mare from W. Wright, who is my son-in-law, whom I heard say he had purchased it from George Brough. .George Brough was about Akaroa when I purchased the mare. I paid £32 for her in notes, of which I took the numbers. Can't say why I took the number on this occasion, except that I had heard something about counterfeit notes being about.- I paid the amount in two sums—£2s on first occasion at W...Wright house, and £7 on stli January. 1876, at my own house, when I took delivery of the mare. The mare was supposed to be'in foai when I bought her but proved not to be. She has had a foal since. After Sunckell's sale, W. Wright told me Perham had said the mare was his, and that he would come to my place and take it away. I know Thomas Brough. He never tok) me Perham claimed the mare.- I will swear it. Of the two foals belonging to the mare one is two years, and the other one year old.

lie-examined by Mr Inwood : When Perham came with Olphert, I had owned the mare about a year and four months. He had never claimed her. up. to that time.

William Wright, sworn, said, . 1 am a dairy farmer residing at French Farm, and know the mare in question. I once owned her. I bought her from George Brough on December 20, 1875, for £30. She had a foal at the time. I bought both together. I paid Brough cash in -notes, and produce the receipt. .Cannot say if Perham knew I had bought-it. In April or May, 1876, Perham came to me at the French Farm sheep yards, and asked me if I had bought the mare oil: George Brough, to which I replied that I had. He then said that George and Peter Brough owed him a lot of money, and that George ought to have let him.have the" mare. The next time I saw him was at Sunckell's sale, when he said, "I am going to take the mare you bought off George Brough ; I'm going for her tomorrow." I said that I did'nt think he would. I have often seen the two foals mentioned, and should value them at £27

the two. - ttiy tffe B&tMfltfjNrfUtiH && tttji take the m\a WHflfl -lid (tbafe itiv HififeY j ■ Cro«M»flJtnitltfd fe*. Mi %ht f i I bWgfit the mare '16 abtl .again, ; .Brougli, did Hot owe ihe iKirineJr at the tithe, " I, gave £80 for her, alio af ierwMls s6ld mi tb Bates ■ for £32. ~I .pttirf Brotigti in 6ttah i.Bfttes paid ftiink.,, HeMi«'ttle/the' greater * portion'Stbbiit'the time M purchased; ir-Wtfs, at irif hfl"3e. Not longer than' a vfate'fe ftftofw'.'irds I delivered the hiare to Mm at" Iti'jf Own place', when he paid mo tfte l&lsnco ill notes. Some convocation pftsjWd about taking the numbers of the notm . I fold him it Was better to take them. I said so because I had seen it done; I have done it myself often. There was n6 object in it further than the idea of p69sible loss. Tho first time I "saw" Perhain was at Mr Baker's sheepyards, when he said the boys ought to have let him havo the mare, as they owed him a lot of money. Since then it waa about 13 months to Sunckeil's sale. I never heard from anyone that Perham claimed the mare. By the Bench : I was not aware of any disputed .ownership when I bought the marc. ' ', George Brough deposed: I know the mare in question ; she was my mare. Four and a half years ago Perhani came to me to borrow a brown gelding of mine to take bis"wife to Christchurch. He was away three weeks, and when he came back he told me my horse had fallen down with his wife three times on the road, and that, thinking the horse was dangerous, he had exchanged it away for the bay mare to MiLane. He brought and showed me the mu-e when he returned, and I agreed to take her "In'exchange for the horse, and made no objection. ■ He gave her over to,me unconditionally. >I never heard any claim from him on her until I got notice to. come down here on this case. I never heard any claim before I left here some 21 months ago. I heard by letter about five or six months ago • that ■he threatened to take the horse ; this was the first I heard. The mare, was in my possession some two years. 1 " 1 am uncertain whom the letter was from -either Wright or Bates. I made an attempt to deal with this mare in the presence of Perham and Joseph Wright. I offered her to the latter for sale, but he objected to the price. Perham heard my offer, for he remarked what a fine horse it was, but he said nothing further. Perham himself offered me £25 for,the mare. He said he ought to have first chance, as I should never have had the mare but for him. I was not indebted to Perham when I left. There is a balance account between us; I believe the balance is on my side. When he brought the mare back, I owed him nothing ; had only just left my father's place at that time. Cannot say whether anybody else offered me for the mare in Perham's presence. The mare was in foal when Perham brought her down. That foal would have been four years old had it lived. Perham might have known of the foal; he never claimed either foal or mare from me.; ■ A A..'

•Cross-examirjed by Mr Joynt.■': .To 'my .knowledge I hejd not lent Perham or his. wife, wlio is my' sister, the gelding pre- | vioiis;', to Perha'm's asking me on the occasion referred to. I was in debt, when I left here,to bettbr inyselty but not as I consider: to Perham. There is another party in the matter. When I sold the mare .at the end of 1875 I was not in debt to I'erham. ..Theother piirty was my brother, ' Peter. We w.ere partners in a contract at Barry's Bay,' but nothing in connection with Perh/unA Pete/is in the Northlsland. The account 'I alluded to is for cattle,, money lent, &c., It is not settled, each of us owe'f the other money, and the account might .have beeVi running 2 years. I never gave Perham. alit'hority to part with the gelding, which j bought from Duxbury. I never lived at Perham's, merely called and wept a.way again. My horses ran often at his pUicel When I left Akaroa, Perham never 4 sked'me ; 'to bring his horses back. We.ha\lnot had dealings together for nearly 12ipontlis before I went away. I never asked.hini if I might take the mare away, &he' wasi my own property and I could tal«' her where I liked. George' Wright deposed. I was with Perham arid Bates at-French Farm. I had left off work with Mr Bates when we met Perham, who asked us to come and see the bargainee hitcl made for George Brough by swopping hisi gelding-for a mare with someone'in Christchurch. He talked of tl'4f? bargain as being for George Brough,' artd said he thought the mare was damaged in the shoulder when he bought hen. He did. not speak 6H the mare as his, but as G-j-orge Brough's.

Blythe -Die-ken deposed : I know the mare in dispute. . I have heard Perham tell of Ibis going to iChristchurch and trading this.mare for George Brough, and what a good swop he had made for his brother-in-law George Brough. Jo>seph Wright deposed : I know the maro in question. I remember meeting Perham and G. J Brough on the road to Barry's Bay George Brough offered to sell the .narefori£3o." Perham made no objection at the time. This concluded'the case for the Plaintiff.

L. Perham deposed : I am a farmer at Barry's Bay, George Brough is my brother-, in-law. I remember a brown gelding of his ;' I sold her in Chris ten arch for £14 ; I sold her because G. Brough told me to seil her. I borrowed the gelding on a Sunday for my Wife to go to Wainui. The horse stumbled nearly all ths way; whori I returned George Brongh asked me how I liked him, I said it was a stumbling brute, not fie for any one to ride. He said he knew it, and wmh'ed he could sell it. I said my wife wanted to go to town, and if he lent us the geiding I would try and sell it. He said " I gave £15 . for it, and would not like to take less than £14." He said I Avas to place the money to his credit in my books. We went to Christchurch. and! sold the horse for £14. He said nothing about trading Avith another horse for him. When I returned with the mare, I turned her out in my paddock. ■George Brough came and asked for the loan'of a horse, and I said he could take her; this was about four days after my return. He and his, brothers used my horses habitually. He took the mare, preferring her, as being strong and able to carry him. (By the Bench . We were not certain she was in foal). He brought her back tbe same day. She ran for a long time in my place, alter this. The Brouglis had no place of their own at that time. They borrowed her often after that. I used her my self very often. I never authorised George Brough to -sell the mare. I remember shortly before he left Canterbury, I met him, and said, tare-orge, the best thing you can do is to bring back my horses, as things are going crooked. I meant with him. He told me

he would bring them back to-morrow, or neit day. I never saw him afterwards till to-day. He had had the horses when I spoke to him about a month or more. He was about £15 or £16 in my debt when he fold me I might put the proceeds of the sale to hi3.credit.' : It.j.'was enteredjdn my books some "time afterwards. About sii Blough left I found out that the'unare'was sold to Wright. It was April or May when I met Wright at Baker ! s-sheep-yard. I asked him whether he had bought the bay mare Brough was in the habit of using. He said, tl yes, I bought her of G. Brough." I said she was mine, and no one else's. Nothing more passed between us, except that he said, "I intend to stick to her, anyhow." I refrained from taking proceedings forthe recovery of the mare for fear George Brough would be punished for horse-stealing ; my wife, his sister, influenced me not to. The statement of Bates and G. Wright, that I pointed the mare out to them as a swop I had made for George Brough is false. What I said was, " Come and see the deal I've made." . I never mentioned George 'Brbugh's name, or said I had made a deal for him. Db not-remember saying anything to them about the gelding. Some time after 1 learnt that the mare was sold to Wright* I heard she had been sold to Bates. I never offered G. Brough £25 for the mare. Will swear I never heard i him offer to sell the mare to Joseph Wright for £30. George Brough had no right or title to the mare whatever. I never told Mr Blythe Dicken anything about making a good swop for G; Brough; 1 only said I had bought her in Christohurch. My wife and Thomas Brough were present when G. Brough instructed me to sell the gelding. Thomas Brough was present when I asked George Brough to bring back the horses.

Cross-examined by Mr Inwood : The mare proved in foal after I brought her down. I hear the foal is dead now. It was three years old when I last saw it I don't know who paid for the service of the mare. The transaction in Christchurch was a sale. I produce the receipt. I bought the mare first. When I returned I did not go to Brough's, but turned the mare out in my paddocks. I never said what Charles Bates and George Wright allege. G. Brough was indebted to me £50 or more when he left. I did not go and claim the mare then for the reason I have previously given. Ido so now because I do not like to see other people riding my property about. The mare grazed at the paddocks of George Brough, at Barry's Bay, while he had the place. Mrs Perham. sworn, said : I am the wife of Luke Perham. I remember my brother George having a brown gelding. It was the same as I took to Christcharch. I rode her once before I went to Christchurch, to Wainui, with my husband. The horse stumbled all the way. When we returned my brother George asked me how I liked' the horse. I, told him he was a stumblipg brute.. My brother then said, when we took him to Christchurch,, if-we could get ■anything like a price for- him, to sell him, but not for less than" £14. He said if my husband could sell the horse he could place the money to his credit, as he owed us an account. The Broughs often borrowed horses from my husband. When we returned from Christchurch, I entered the proceeds to the credit of G. Brough. It was within a few days after my return that I made the entry. I had a great deal to do with preventing my husband from taking proceedings about the mare.

Cross-examined by Mr Inwood : I don't recollect the date I went to Wainui. I think it will be about five years ago next June. My brother aid not borrow money.then. It was in 1871 when they first had money transactions, with the exception of the things at Hawtrey's sale.

Thomas Brough deposed: I reside at Barry's Bay. I remember my brother George having a brown Gelding. I recollect Luke Perham taking it to Christchurch. I heard Luke borrow the horse. George asked Luke to sell the horse for him, but not under £14. Luke was to place the money to George's credit; George said so. I remember when the mare returned. I borrowed the mare often ; always asked Perham's permission, but never my brother's. I never heard my brother say the mare was his. I remember just before my brother left; I was present when Luke asked George where the horses were; he replied "At French Farm." Luke said he saw Peter pass his house several times without coming in, and thought things began to look crooked, and told George to bring the horses back. He said—"l will bring them back to-morrow or the next day." I did not see George afterwards. He did not bring back the horses. The horses he had were the mare and a bay colt and filly, the progeny of the mare. I did not know George was off, when he left.

Cross examined by Mr Inwood : I swear positively that my brother George said tue money proceeding from the sale of the horse was to be-placed to his credit. I remember when I went through the Court, (Mr Joynt here objected to references to the schedule being brought in, as that document waa not before the Court Re-examined' by Mr Joynt: I went through the Court in 1876. This concluded the case-for the defendant. The counsel on both sides having reviewed the case at considerable length, the Bench reserved judgment until the following day, at 9 a.m.

Saturday, Nov. 17. (Before His Worship the Mayor, and H. H. Fenton, Esq., J.P.) Civil Cases, c. bates v. l. perham. On the Court being opened, the Bench further adjourned this case for three weeks (Dec. 7). for the evidence of Henry Burgess Lane, of Christchurch, under the R.M. Act, 1870. • L. PERHAM V. G. BROUGH. This Avas a claim for monies due by the defendant for supplies when engaged on a contract at French Farm. The case was dismissed with. costs, as the accounts produced included the names of other parties besides the defendant.

Monday, Nov. 19. (Before His Worship the Mayor, and H. H. Fenton, Esq., J.P.) INDECENT EXPOSURE. Thomas Hunter, for an offence of this nature, was sentenced to seven days'imprisonment, with hard labour.

November 20,1877. (Before His Worship the Mayor and G. H. Saxton, Esq., J.P.) CREATING A DISTURBANCE. An adjourned case against E. Leprou for this offence was dismissed, as/was-also a similar case against John Gracier. CATTLE TRESPASS. J. F. Roberts, for tethering a horse in Jollie-street, was fined 10s and costs. John Glynan, was fined ' the same amount for allowing a bull to be at large, and George Breitmeyer was mulcted in the same penalties for having allowed 25 head of cattle to wander on the public road in Robinson's Bay. ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. Nina Johnson v. Annie Blore.—Case dismissed. ASSAULT. Nina Johnson v. Annie Blore.—Case dismissed, DAMAGE TO PROPERTY. Annie Blore was charged by G. Johnson with damaging the door of the dwelling house occupied b} r him, plaintiff assessing the damage at ss. After hearing the evidence, which was of a very contradictory nature, the Bench gave judgment for the amount of damage with costs. Civil Cases. Esther Munns v. W. Widdicombe.— Claim, £13 10s for use and occupation of premises in German Bay. Mr Nalder for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff with costs and professonal fee, 21s. J.F. Roberts v. B. Shadbolt, cl aim £7 7s for preparation of plans. Defendant denied liability, stating that plaintiff! had been engaged by Mr Inwood. Case dismissed, the Bench being of opinion that Mr Inwood was the person liable. E. W. Morey v. P. O'Reilly, claim £2 10s for work done. Defendant pleaded set-oft for £2 13s 6d. Judgment for plaintiff for £1 10s with costs. The Court then adjourned.