AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume V, Issue 467, 14 January 1881, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, Jan. 11, 1881. Befork Justin Aylmku, Esq., 11 M. FURIOUS RIDING. David Wright, charged with this offence, was dismissed with a caution. CREATING A DISTURBANCE. Luke Perham, for creating a disturbance in a public place, was fined 10s and costs. CREATING A DISTURBANCE IN A LICENSED HOUSE. John Sunckell was charged by Thomas Brooks with tliis offence. Mr Deacon appeared for the defendant. The circumstances out of which the charge arose took place on the evening of the 29th December, at the Somerset Hole!, Head of the Bay. It appeared that on that occasion there was a iinal settling up for the racs held on the 27tb. A statement made by defendant wa-i characterised by Brooks as " a lie," and according to defendant's evidence as a '< J j ]j e> » Defendant returned the compliment, and hence the present case. Mr Deacon was proceeding to call evidence for the defence, when the Bench stated that there was no need to do so. Mr Deacon hoped the Bench would mark its sense of complainant's conduct by giving costs against him. Licensed houses existed for the convenience of the public, and it was into'erablc if people could not go into them without being called liars. The Bench dismissed the case, complainant to pay costs of three witnesses and solicitor's fee, £1 Is. LARCENY OF A DOCUMENT. John and Ellen Prendevillo were charged with stealing- a. valuable security, viz., a receipt for £3 odd, the property t/f Peter Jansen. Mr Deacon nppenred for the defence. Prosecutor, who is a Swede, gave his evidence through an interpreter. He is alfo intensely deaf, and to add to tho confusion lie and the interpreter did not seeni to understand one another very well. The work of eliciting information, especially in cress-examination, was therefore exceedingly difficult.

Briefly stated, the case for the project - tion was as follows :—Jansen had summoned Prendeville for an account. The night before the case was to be heard the latter came to his house and wished to fettle. Jansen, his wife and daughters all went over to Prindeville's house. S »me money was produced by Mrs Prendeviiie. Jansen's daughter was instructed to write out a receipt, as Jansen could not write. Just as she was finishing writing her father's name Mrs Prendeville snatched up the receipt and the money, too, exclaiming " Now you are paid," and using srne very uncomplimentary language.

In crows-examination several discrepancies in tlie evidence for the prorecution were apparent, and the Bench dismissed the case. CIVIL CASKS. Okain's Road Board v. Dalglish.—This was a re-hearing of a case which has already been before the Bench, and in which judgment had been given for defendant. Plaintiffs claimed £42 as rent of the Le Bon's Bay jetty for one j'ear, Mr Deacon appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr T. W. Maude for defendant. Mr Deacon called David Wright, who said he was clerk to (he Okniri's Dislric Road Board t Mr Maude said he intended to contest the case at every step. He fihon'd call nnon his learned friend to prove the exist. ence of the Road Board. He mentioned this now tlint the other side might not be taken by surprise. Mr Deacon aaid his learned friend had taken him by surprise, he might say very much by surprise. Counsel for plaintiffs then proceedel to put in the conditions on which the jetly was to be leaped, defendant's tender, its acceptance, and the Board's minutebook. Mr Maude asked if thcse*-doeii:nenl.-i were put in as evidence of a contract Mr Deacon : .Jgr.f Mr Mnnde objected that tfiey \ wort

unstamped

Mr Deacon contended ihni they wo it e:comnt from stamp duty. By tli; j Marino Act \S\a Governor wns ,mihonied to dolrgatt, all or any of \\\? powers merjeuir--to any per.-on or persons. Tlh'w pownr* had b?en delegated to t!:e 15 '<i-.i. who ilnn became rcj>re.-vi ; tit:vos of the Crown. By

the Stamp Act any contract made with Uer Majesty or the Government, or with any peruoti on her or theii behalf, wa a exempt from \\\[y. Mr Maude contended that tltis exemption only applied to any person directly employed by the Crown, as for instance the Minister for Public Works. The Bench made a note of the point. A very knglhy nrguinent, or series of arguments, ensued between counsel on either side, which it was smiewhat difficult to follow. The Bench ruled that there had beon a letting of the j'.'tt}", that defendant had made an offer to the Oknin's Road Boml i that he could not now dispute their title, and that the evidence should be gone on with. The evidence sts to the letting was identical with that given at the forme 1 " hearing. In addition to this, D. Wright, T. Old ridge, mid W. Barneit gave evidence to the effect that defendant had possession of the jetty " by reputation.' The two former slate that they had received goods over the wharf, arid had not been charged wharfage. Ir , wharfage had been charged by defendant they would have had to pay. The Bench reserved judgment till Tuesday the 18th inst. Callaghau v. Graham. Claim ill. Mr Deacon appeared for the plaintiff. This was an action for the return of a heifer or its value. Judgment was given for plain till for £G Gs and costs. The Court then adjourned, having sat from 11 a.m. till after 7 p. in.