BALCLUTHA.

Clutha Leader, Volume III, Issue 143, 6 April 1877, Page 5

BALCLUTHA.

AruiL 4, 1877. (Before E. H. Carew, E-jq. - , R.M.)

Hugha^v. Robertson.— lnformation for removing titnber from Crowo Lands. Defendant ]>l«aded uot gijilty. T. G. Huugerf'u-d gave evidence that he had seen the defendant remove a log from oIE section 45, block 8, Glenomaru survey district. Mr H.ujjhan's authority to sue was put in, also a map signed by the Chief Surveyor. Defendant said he was not aware it was Crown lands he was removing the timber from, and was acting undor orders from MxM'Konzie, owner of the mill.

His Worship cautioned defendant a«ainst repeating the offence, and fined him 40» and witness's expenses, 15s. Samr v. Fhank M'Lkan> A charge of felling timber, not being licensed. Defendant pleaded not guilty. • T. G. Hungerford gave evidence to prove that lie had seen defendant feliing a pine on section 45, block 8, Glenomaru, on the 22nd January last.

6. Robertson was also c.illod but could give no evidence ou the point. Defendant stated that on the day mentioned he was. working on a section known as M'Phee'si section. Tins was section 4 L On showing the place on the map where he was working, he poiutod almost to the middle of section 45. Mr M'Kenzie stated defendant was working for his firm on the date of the alleged offeuce. The place he was working at was a few chains from a road-line through section 44. His Worship held tho offeuce proved, and fined defendant 40s and witness's expeuses 15s.

Same v. La.tta.~ Similar charge. Mr M 'Kenzie explained that defendant; was unable to attend as lie wis a widower, and had a large family, [some'of whom were suffering from whooping co /gh. He also said that defendant wished him to plead guilty. T. Or. Hungerford proved tho offence, and defendant was fined 40s and witness's expenses, 148.

Mitchell v- Sikvwutght.— Claim of £5 15s. Mr W. Taylor for plaintiff ; Mr Win. Henderson for defendant, who pleaded indebtedin the sum of €1 15s which was teudered, and not indebted in tli« remainder.

G. F. Mitchell stated that defendant came to him about the 14th February and asked him to tender for papering a shop. He went and saw the shop, and by defendant's instructions did the work. The prices charged were not agreed on, but were fair and reasonable prices. Cross-examined by Mr Henderson ,• He did not know at first whether Evans or Sievwriglit waa to pay him. He charged the work to both of them' on a slate, but when Evans refused payment he entered it in his book to Sievwright. He had done other work for defendant and had rendered his account for that ouly. because he did not then kuow who was to pay for it. Before Evans filed his schedule he asked Evans to pay. He then spoke to Sievwright about it, but he refuspd to pay. S. Mitchell corroborated the previous witness's evidence.

For the defence, Mr Henderson called the dofendant, who stated that he went to plaintiffs and told them that Evans wanted them to tender for papering the new f?h op for him (plaintiff). He never authorised plaintiffs to do the work, and when the paper was being put on he objected that it was not li^ht enough to show off the boots in his shop. When the account was presented to him he said he would pay the amount due, but refused to pay for papering the shop. Cross-examined by Mr Taylor : He went to the plaintiffs for Evans, because he wanted to get into the shop as soon as possible, and Evans was too busy to go. He did not authorise the plaintiffs to do the work on his account, and he supposed Evans had ordered the paper. He did not go to Mr Stewart for a tender for papering the room, although ho asked him the cost of painting the sign. After a severe, cross-examination, he admitted that he had asked Stewart for a tender, "vvheo asked how he reconciled the two statements he mado about asking a teuder from Mr Stewart, he said he could see no difference between them.

His Worship in giving judgment, said the plaintiff's and defendant's statemeufcs were contradictory, but the defendant contradicted himself so much he would not believe him. Ho therefore gave judgment for the amount claimed and costs. Sulwvan to Gilmour. — Application tor temporary transfer of the license for the Jetty Hotel, Kaitangata Mr Henderson appeared in support of the application, which was granted, His Worship stating that the police report from Naseby gave Mr Gilmoxiv an excellent character.