RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Cromwell Argus, Volume IV, Issue 185, 27 May 1873, Page 6

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, May 22, 1873. (Before W. Lawrence Simpson, Esq., F.M.) RAFFLING A HORSE. George Manson, storekeeper, Carrickton, was charged on the information of Sergeant Cassels with having illegally raffled a horse on the 3rd insfc., contrary to the provisions of the Town and Country Police Ordinance. The Prosecutor stated that when he served the summons the defendant admitted that the raffle took place, and afterwards pointed out to him the horse that was raffled. Other raffles, lie was informed, also took place at the same hotel (Horrigan's) on the 3rd inst. He was not prepared with direct evidence to prove the present charge, owing to the fact that those who were concerned in the raffle could not he forced to give evidence that might inculpate themselves. He would ask for an adjournment to enable him to produce evidence of non-participators. Mr Wilson (for defendant) said that to save further trouble, he would plead "guilty." The learned counsel then addressed the Bench in mitigation of penalty. He said the defendant had transgressed the law through sheer ignorance and innocence.

His Worship said this was the second case of the kind that had come before him within ten years. Mr Wilson had urged that raffling was n common practice, but the very fact of it being common led the Court to believe it was generally known to be illegal. Getting up raffles in hotels with the object of drawing a crowd was a prevalent practice in the Colonies, and one very much to be deprecated. But this was not the case in the present instance. The defendant having, as was stated, been in difficulties at the time, got tip a raffle to raise money : this seemed to the Court a polite way of begging. Looking at all the circumstances, the Court would merely inflict such a fine as would suffice to show people that raffles are forbidden, and that they cannot be overlooked by the authorities. Fined 205., together with 9s. costs. JAMES ROBE'lTsm V. F. FRENN!«?ON T , The plaintiff claimed £l6 lis. for work done e-n the Bannock burn Water Bace. Defendant paid £l2 6s. 2d. into Court, and dis uted the balance, on the ground that plaintiff had lost three weeks and rive days of the time claimed for. Plaintiff admitted the lost time, but alleged that Frennesson. as the holder of an eighth share, was only entitled to deduct for one-eighth of the lost time. Plaintiff was also the owner of an eighth share, which he had bought from defendant. Frennesson produced an agreement bearing the si mature of "James Robertson," but * plaintiff said it was not his signature. He said, " Tf it wasna for the stamp, it's as like ma haund <->' write as can be ; but it was a clean sheet I signed—there was no stamp at the bottom." He could not say whether the sheet was stamped on the corner or not, nor whether Fiennesson's signature was attached to the document he had signed. The case was adjourned for the production of Isaac Wright as witness to the signa" tnre ; but when the hearing was resumed, plairtifT agreed to accept the amount paid into Court, and judgment was given accordingly. JAMES TAYLOR V. JOHN ALVES. Claim, £37 6s. 4d. for timber and other building materials supplied. Mr Allanby appeared for plaintiff. Mr Wilson, for defendant, pleaded not indebted, alleging that the Nil Desperandum Company were responsible for payment of the account. James Taylor, timber merchant, sworn : I supplied the materials mentioned in the account to Mr Alves, on his verbal instructions and written order. Defendant told me he had the Nil Desperandum mill, claim, and everything connected therewith in bis own hands, and directed me to send the stuff ordered up to the claim, which I did. Some time afterwards (on the 20tli December last), 1 presented the account to him: and he promised to pay it within a fortnight. The amount is still owing to me. Plaintiff was cross-examined at some lengtl by Mr Wilson. P. H. M'Ardell, sworn: I was manager o the Wil Desperandum Company up to the 2Stl of last month. I was piesent when Alve! gave the order to Taylor. Taylor had ]>re viouslv refused to supply building materials ti the Nil, or indeed to any other quartz-mining company. Plaintiff told Alves he would sunph the stuff ordered if he (Alves) became responsive bu 1 -. he would not supply the Company. Charles Colclough, legal manager for the Ni Co., sworn : 1 remember plaintiff refusing ti supply building materials to the company, am saying that in future he would only ileal witl individuals. 1 heard Alves telling Taylor tha he would be responsible for the payment of th goods ordered by him. For th" defence. John Alves, contractor, sworn, stated : 1. Un dertook that the contractors for the macbiner; should be responsible for payment of the good supplied, provided the Nil C >nipinv did not pa; the amount. 1 told plaintiff not to send up th s'uft' 1 had ordered without a written order fror the Nil Company. I ordered weatherboards which were never sent, but a more expensiv material—iron—was substitu f ed, which 1 di not order. 1 distinctly made the proviso that i the company did not order the stuff I would no be responsible.

Cross-examined: The contract price of the machinery was £IO3O, of which the ecitVactoi'S

have received £350, There are about 1300 dummies in the company. I had the whole property of the company as security at the time the goods were ordered from Taylor : except the capital and calls of the Compauy, which were totally omitted in the agreement. His Worship said the decision of the Court must he against defendant, except that a deduction must be made from the sum claimed on account of the plaintiff having substituted iron for timber in executing a portion of the order. There was no evidence to enable the Bench to arrive at the .difference in value between the goods ordered and those supplied, hut some allowance must he made. Judgment for £3o' with 355. costs of Court, 21s. solicitor's fee, and 40s. witnesses' expenses. D. A. JOLLY & CO., V. NIL DESPERANDUM CO.

Claim, £ll 2s. The Legal Manager appeared and acknowledged the debt, and judgment was given for the amount, together with 17s. costs.

INTERPLEADER CASE. The parties concerned in this case were John Jackson, a judgment creditor of the Nil Desperandum Company ; Charles Colclough, manager of the said company ; and John Alves, P. H. M'Ardell, and James Winter, the claimants of the property in dispute. The interpleader summons was issued at the instance of Bailiff Hall.

Mr Allanby appeared for the plaintiff; Mr Brewer and Mr Colclough for the Company ; and Mr Wilson for the claimants.

William Hall, bailiff to the Resident Magistrate's Court, Cromwell, sworn : By virtue Of a warrant issued at the suit of John Jackson against the Nil Desperandum Company, I took possession, on the Sfch inst., of certain property known as the Ml Desperandum crushing machinery and plant. I left a man in possession on that date. Mr Alves claimed the property on the spot, and I therefore took the present proceedings. The property was put up for sale by Alves and Co. on the Bth, and I protested against the sale. I did this because I had taken possession on the 6th, but had left no one in charge. On the Bth I found a man in charge of the mi chinery for Alves. After the sale I afflxel a notice on the property, intimating that it was in my possession under warrant of execution, and warning persons that any interference would entail prosecution. On the 9th I took out interpleader summonses ; and on the 13th Alves deposited in my hands the amount cliimel under two warrants of distraint.

Cross-examined by Mr Wilson : The notice 1 left on the 6th was affixed to the door of the coalshed. It set forth that I had taken possession of the machinery. Cross-examined bv Mr Allanby : I made the seizure on account of the Nil Company being the reputed owners. To the Bench : My assistant and Alves'man were both in possession at l he same time. Mr Wilson submitted that no complete seizure

had been proved. His Worship took n. no*-e of the circumstance that the claimants were in possession at the time the machinery was seized.

At the request of claimants' counsel, Mr Raird, mining registrar, produced a duolioate of transfer of tlie Nil Desperandum machine site from the Nil Company to John A.lves and Co. The certificate was registered on 12th November 1872.

Mr Wilson relied upon the certificate above mentioned to establish his client's title to the ground on which the machinery stood. Mr Colclough said the company claimed the machinery, and not the site. He contended

that the machinery and the site were each a separate chattel property, and that the holder of one could not lay claim to the other

His Worship remarked that the fact of the ground being held by Alves afforded a strong presumption that what stood upon it was his also. It was for the company to prove that the machinery belonged to them. Tt was undoubtedly in custody of Alves. under the right constituted by the transfer of site to him. Thatransfer cons'if uted a title to the land, and raised a strong presumption that the machinery was the property of the person holding the land—until the contrary was established.

John Alves, (called by Mr Brewer,) was sworn, and was asked to produce an agreement entered into between the company and contractors ; but not having been served with notice to prod nee the document, the witness could not be compelled to ansvv r questions regarding it. Mr Brewer asked for an adjournment to allow of the agreement being produced. Mis Worship refused to emit an adjournin 'lit; on that ground unless ample costs were a'lowed to the complainants. The compndy had had plenty of time to serve the requisite notion since the summon? w s issued.

Mr Colcliugh said the company had relied ! upon Mr Alves' proun'se to produce the agree- | ment. In giving judgment, his Worship said that the I amount of the execution had been paid by the j claimants, and if the deposit was given back to | Alves the Mag'strate's jurisdiction would cease. | because it was in relation to the deposit, and not I in regard to the rightful ownership of the property, that the present case was brought. The j rinding was as follows : From the evidence nd- | dreed, ihe Court is of opinion that the propety distrained was at the time of the distraint the ! property of the claimants, John Alves, James j Winter, and l\ H. M'Ardell, and orders the deposit made to be restored.