RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2375, 11 November 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Yesterday. (Before A. G. Strode, Esrp, 11. M.) TEH JOKY. William Hanlon, a, police constable, was charged with having, at Dunedin, on the 2-ltli September last, committed wilful and corrupt perjury. Thomas Kitchingham, living at Peliehot Bay, a horse dealer, said he was charged before the Mayor and Mr Brodic with using obscene language. Hanlon was examined on oath as a witness against him. fie said that “ Me and Mary Carter (calling me the defendant) had applied for licenses for different houses in this town, and he was refused, owing to his bad character.” He further said, “ the defendant kept a house in King street to harbor prostitutes and convicted thieves.” He also said, “there had been complaints against the defendant on account of his bad character, and receiving those people into his house. He never was refused a license, nor did he and Mary Carter ever apply for a license. He lodged an application about the beginning of June, but withdrew it. The statement was false and untrue. He had held a license, but never received convicted thieves and prostitutes into his house. He kept the Waggon and Horses Hotel at Waitahuua, and no complaints had ever been lodged against him. Cross-examined by Mr Barton : He ’came from Victoria, where he had been eighteen months in Pentridge Stockade, having been convicted of receiving a stolen horse. He never was in Dunedin gaol before being confined for non-payment of LlO. Mary Carter was a widow with whom he was living. He was not married to hj r. On the night her husband poisoned himself, a policeman did not lind him in the same bed with Mary Carter. He lodged an application, but did not withdraw it because of a petition being signed, objecting to its being granted on account of his keeping an immoral house. He could not swear that Mary Cameron, a servant of Mrs Carter’s, was not a prostitute. He knew that a man named Campbell was robbed of Ll2O In the Coach and Horses the night he was there. He did not know that he was suspected of the robbery. The only • other man in the house that night was M'Chee, present landlord. Charles Shepherd gave evidence as to the words used which were, “That the license should be refused on account of Kitchingham’s bad character.” He allowed his wife to visit at the house, and if he thought it the resort of thieves and prostitutes he would not do so. In cross-examination, the witness did not believe he was able to repeat Hanlon’s very

words. Sergt. Ryan did not rcincinbcrtbc words used, but they were to the effect that he had known Kitchingham for some years, who had applied for a licence for a house in Albany street, and it was refused on account of his bad character; complaints had been made of his keeping a disorderly house. Complaints had been made to him of Kitchingham’s conduct, which induced him to institute the proceedings. He knew him at Waitahuna, but he was not then keeping a hotel. Within six months constable Hanlon, who had been in the North-East District eight years, pointed out to the witness Kitchingham and Mary Carter’s house, .a? one that was suspected, and ought to be watched. At Waitahuna, Kitchingham bore the same bad character as now.—T. Calcutt, clerk of the Court, said notice of intention to apply for a licence was given, but no application was marie in open Court —A witness named Hutchinson said that Kitchingham occupied a house of his eleven months, and he believed him to be a good man. If lie knew the house to he the resort of thieves and prostitutes he would not have allowed him to stop in it. Robert Williamson, reporter for the Daibj Time s, gave evidence as to the purport of the words used. On tho application of Air Bathgate, the case was adjourned to Tuesday. This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq , 11. M.) JUDGMENT. Storer v. Hutchison.--His Worship gave judgment in this case as follows : —Aftei careful consideration of the evidence adduced in this case, I have come to the conclusion that tho defendant is not liable. It appears to me that the plaintiff could not hut have known of the open hatch through which he fell from the fact of his having been on board the Industry at least six times before the accident, and working on board for three or four consecutive days in such a position that tho opening in question must have been known to him. It seems also plain that tho plaintiff must have been aware of the custom of leaving no covering to the hatches in any of the hulks belonging to bis employer Loin seeing constantly the state, in this respect of the hulks California and Cincinnatti, on board of both of which vessels he had lived for some time. Evidence was given moreover to .show the reason of the hatches being kept open, which was, that - teamens had occasion frequently to coal at night, .and it was therefore necessary to keep everything for the performance of this work always in readiness. I’hc practise in respect of keeping open hatches on board of hulks seems materially to differ from that prevailing in sea-going vessels, for the reason stated. Upon a review of the whole evidence, I can come to no other conclusion than that the attendant risks of his employment on board of these hulks must have been known to the. plaintiff, and that he had an opportunity of guarding against them hy his vigilance and care. I can regard the matter in no other light than as an inevitable accident. Judgment for defendant. Mr Turton, solicitor, for the defendant, said that now the defendant was in a position to give some compensation to tho plaintiff, which ho could not do while legal proceedings were pending. Civil Cases. Robins v. M’Causland.—A claim for L 3 10s, for work done to a buggy. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount. J. and A. Boyd, North Taicri, v. Peter Allan. —An action for damages by trespass of tho defendant’s cattle ; Mr Harris for the plaintiffs, and Mr Haggit for the defendant. The amount of damage claimed was L2O. John Boyd, one of the partners k the run, held under lease from the Crown on which the alleged trespass took place, said that the defendant lived in tnc Hindon township. Two horses of the defendant were running on that run. They had laid down 11.1 acres of freehold land in English grasses, and he had seen those horses grazing on the ground a hundred times. He saw them there on the 24th October. He knew the hors ;s by the brand. On remonstrating with the defendant, he said lie had as much right to the pasture as the plaintiff, for he was a squatter, and held a license from the Crown ; and he (defendant) was a tradesman, and held a business license, which gave him equal right. In consequence of defendant’s hoiscs trespassing, damage had been done to the extent of a pound at least. The ground had boon turned and a crop taken off. The horses strayed on to his land through its not being fenced. He shut the horses in a sheep pen, but gave them nothing to eat before being claimed by the defendant. Allan Boyd, one of the plaintiffs, co firmed the evidence. He did not know that the run occupied by himself and brothers was within tho boundaries of a goldfield. He thought not, as when he wanted to throw up the run, compensation -was refused. John M ‘Donald gave evidence as to having seen the horses on the night of the 23rd in the sheep pen, and to the conversation between plaintiff and defendant. Mr Haggitt held that Hindon being a proclaimed township, tho lands were waste lands of the Crown, and that the defendant was entitled by tho 9th section of the Goldfield’s Regulations to run two head of great cattle free. But lie would not rest on that point, as the plaint must fail, as there was no proof of the cattle feeding. His Worship considered that the case failed through there being no proof of trespass within the dates specified in the plaint, the 24th to the 29th October. Mr Harris asked an expression of the Magistrate’s opinion on the subject, in order to remove the impre-slon that holders of miners rights and business licenses had a right to graze over the land. His Worship thought there might be a doubt as to the law on the sub ject, but he certainly considered land in the position described by the evidence should be fenced. Mr Harris said there would be no alternative but to bring another case into Court. Milne v. W. Shand.—An action to recover possession of certain land occupied by the plaintiff, and L2O as average profit for the number of years during which no rent had been received. Mr Harris for the plaintifF, and Mr Howorth for the defendant. Mr Harris produced Crown grants to prove that tho property in question was originally purchased by (Gorge Shand, and conveyed by him on the Cth Juno, IS(JS, to Mr Milne, Documents were put eu evidence to shew that from July Bth, 1857, there had been mortgages on the property that formed legal barriers to leasing it without consent hy the mortgagees. Mr Milne said lie purchased the property in question of Ceo. Shand, senr. Air Shand was in possession of a portion of the land at the date of purchase, about 20 or 22 acres. He had other tenants on the land. He himself received the rents, and Mr Shand did not claim the right to recover them, Re

agreed to allow Mr Shand to occupy the land for two years. He set up no claim to the land - He (plaintiff) had no notice of any lease from the elder to the younger Shand. The arrangement with George Shand was that ho was to have the equity of redemption of the property for two years, when, if the money was repaid, it should rev rt to him. The two years had expired, but the money had not hem paid. Mr Howorth moved the dismissal of the case on the ground that the provisions of the SStli section of the Act had not been complied with. His Worship considered that in the plaint there was a mixing up of the requirements of the S2nd and SSth sections, which were entirely different. The plaintiff accepted a nonsuit. [Left sitting.]