AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 4, Issue 390, 30 April 1880, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, April 27. (Before J. Aylmer, Esq., R.M.) MANSLAUGHTER. Sergeant Willis applied for the discharge of Annetta Maccioni on a charge of the above nature, he not having any evidence to adduce. Discharge granted. WANDERING BULL. E. Haines was accused by G. M'Kay of allowing a bull to wander at largo. Defendant stated that the bull was not, nor bad it been in bis charge. The animal belonged to Mr Hunt; it had got from Mr Hunt's paddock to his, which was adjoining. Case dismissed. CATTLE TRESPASS. J. LeClerc charged W. Birdling with unlawfully driving his cattle, on April 10, off ground not belonging to him on to the public road ; also, that he did, on the 15th inst., drive his mare on to the road. Fined 5s and costs in each case. ILLEGAL RESCUE. R. Latter v. Thos. Brough.—ln this case plaintiff charged defendant with illegally rescuing two cows, on the 17th inst., which were being driven by his man off his land to the pound. Defendant pleaded " Not guilty." James Read, being called, deposed tha he was in the employ of plaintiff ; that he

had been instructed on the day in question to drive cows belonging to defendant to the pound, they, being on plaintiff's land. When he was on his road, defendant had overtaken him, and stated that the cattle were on unfenced land,' and had asked what charges could be put on them, and had been informed 3d per head and Is damages. Had - used abusive language, and caused the cattle to be driven back. Defendant called Mr LeClere,' who said saw cattle being driven by Read towards Akaroa. and he had afterwards seen them being driven back by Brongh ; he did not know what had passed between Read and defendant, but the latter had passed him (witness) whilst on his road to rescue the cattle, and had told him he was going after the cattle to fetch them back. Defendant, being sworn, said he saw Read driving Ins cattle to the pound, and he went to him and asked him civilly to let him have tbein back, and he would pay the charges, to which Read agreed. Being cross-questioned by plaintiff, he denied having used abusive language against him to Read. Charles Everick, being called, said he saw both men on the road behind the cows, an \ heard no disputing. In reply to Mr Latter, he said he was near when Brough caught up to Read. He did not see Read stop the cattle. To the Bench : He heard no conversation pass between them. Mr LeClerc recalled, in reply to the Bench, said when he passed he was on one side and Road on the other side of the road ; the cows were between them. He heard no row. To the Bench : Brough said distinctly he would go after the cows and fetch them back. He would not allow them to be taken to the pound, and he ran on and stopped them. He seemed annoyed. Read, being recalled, said Brough had said he would take the cows back whether I liked it or not. He said all Latter could charge was 3d a head. He abused me ; he also said if I touched them again he would make it hot for me, and Latter too ; he would soften our two by heads, meaning Latter's and mine. I said there was a law for that as well as for his rescuing the cattle. He said he would chance the law. The Bench remarked that there was very hard swearing on both sides. He considered the remark defendant made to Mr LeClerc went far to prove Read's evidence. He would inflict the lowest fine the Act would permit, £5 and costs, and allow defendant a week to pay it in. Civil Cases. Matthews v. smith. Claim £13 13s on a judgment summons. Mr Nalder appeared for defendant. Defendant said he had not paid because he was a bankrupt. He had undertaken to see the amount paid in the same manner as the other liabilities. His Worship stated he should have given notice to that effect at the time of the action being taken. Mr Nalder gave the same opinion. Defendant said his lawyer had told him differently ; perhaps Mr Nalder was more efficient than other lawyers. The Bench drew attention to the footnote on the summons re the putting in ot a proper set-off; proper notice of gazetting should have been presented to the Court. Some difficulty seemed to be felt by •i'"' Bench as to the power of an order, seeing the defendant was bankrupt. Mr Nalder said the Court had no evidence of the defendant's deed of arrangement. Judgment reserved for seven days. ! vangioni v. d. bourbel. Claim, £29 3s 9d. Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs. A. RODRIGUES V. P. Y. STRATTON. Claim, £9 9s. Mr Nalder appeared for defendant.

Plaintiff deposed that he had bought the books of Alfred Kilig Harlock, formerly schoolmaster here; that he had the deed to that effect (deed produced); that he \yas suing Mr Stratton for amount left as due to Harlock's estate according to the books; that prior to suing him he had asked him, to pay the amount; that the defendant badfdenied knowing anything about the matter, and had instructed him (plaintiff) to apply to his wife. Mr Harlock's deposition, as taken before H. Beetham, Esq., R.M.,Timaru, was then read ; it was to the effect that the amount charged defendant was correct. F. Y. Stratton, being sworn, stated that Harlock had agreed that the boys should go to his school without charging for the tuition, as their going would be the means of his getting others. The amount, £16, was for the time he was away in Melbourne, and had been paid. It was at the Rev. Mr Coopar's instigation that the boys had been sent; he had advised him to send them. For his part he did not care for Mr Harlock. That was the understanding upon which they had been sent. By plaintiff: I remember your asking me for the money, and I told you I knew nothing about it, to go to Mrs Stratton. At the same time I told you I did not intend to pay. I told you you would have to sue me for it. Mrs Stratton, being called, said she had sent her two boys to Mr Harlock's academy free of charge as she thought. Harlock had pressed her very much to let them go. The Rev. Mr Cooper had also persuaded her. He recommended him, and said he was not as black as he was represented. The account produced had been sent to her ; she had returned it, and told Mr Harlock she would pay the £16, but would not pay the other. She had told him if he would send her a receipt for the £16 she would send him achequu ; he had done so, and she had paid him. She had communicated with Mr Cooper since, and received the letter produced in reply. The Bench said they could not take the letter as evidence. a Mr Nalder said he would, under those circumstances, ask for an adjournment for two months. He thought the oaths of Mr and Mrs Stratton should be sufficient evidence. In reply to plaintiff, witness said she did not remember any conversation with him about her children and their going to scho'il. She never taught a school on th« Ferry road, Christchurch, and had never lived there. She had never told plaintiff that she gave music lessons. She never had given any, and could not, as she was no musician. Mr Nalder said plaintiff and his wife were greatly esteemed in Akaroa. He thought it would be creating an unjust aspersion on their character were Harlock's oath to be weighed against their combined

ones. Judgment reserved for seven days. M'INTOSH V. BENNETT. Claim £1310s. Mr Nalder appeared for plaintiff. The claim was made on behalf of an order which plaintiff held from a third party on defendant. Defendant alleged that as, the order had not been left with him, he had paid the money direct to the party to whom it was originally due. After much evidence pro and con in which a tolerable amount of hard swearing was done, the Bench reserved judgment. The Couit then adjourned.