RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2543, 12 April 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tins Day. (Before A. 0. Strode, Esn., R.M.) Civil Cases. Turnbull and Mackerras (trustees in the estate of John Griffen) v. Hyson—Ll Os 1 Id. Mr Haggitt for the plaintiffs. Judgment by default for the plaintiffs. .Same v. Campbell—L2 Is sd. Judgment by default for the plaintiffs. "De Carle v. Stamper.—L3 3s Gd. Mr Catamore for the defendant. For the defence, a set-off was plcnled of L2 13s, and lOs Gd was paid into Court. The claim was for books sold, and the sot off was for money alleged to bo owing to defend a t by Mr Ward, on whose account the books wore sold by Mr De Cade. Mr Stamper said before the sale he wrote Mr Ward, asking him to alloAV him to purchase seven hooks ; on buying them at auction, lie considered himself entitled to set the amount against the money owing. Mr Catamorc cited authority to show that the defendant was enti led to take this course. Mr Do Carle pleaded that money had been advanced on the hooks prim' to the sale, and that as auctioneer lie had nothing to do with the private accounts of the parties. The plaintiff on being swo n said that prior to the sale M r Ward asked for an advance, which was made to about the vain® of the goods, and was not informed of any money matters in abeyance between Mr Ward and the defendant. Judgment deferred.

Irvine v. Millar. —LIOO. This was a claim made f.r balance of wages, money paid, Toacbfare, and compensation for the use of a theodolite, alleged to belong to the plaintiff. LlO 17s fid was paid into Court. The plaintiff said be purchased a tin- odo’itc of Elliott and Brother, in the Strain!, for LfiO or [..'15. He sent it to Mrs Alpenny in March, !Sfis, and did not see it again until the Bth or 9th February last, inthcdofendant’sposscssiou. 11 was given by him to witness to me as his own at Oamaru. On using it, a’though the lees were not the same, lie was convinced the instrument was his own, for there were certain parts deficient which were absent when he sent it to Mrs Alpenuy. So sent

no legs. The legs attached to the instrument were not Elliott’s, hhtanother maker’s. He brought it from Oamarn with him. In cross examination, the plaintiff said he purchased the instrument m 1830, an I bad used it in Dunedin and Invercargill. Ho was in' tho Pr >vincial Government service in 1861, but while under Mr Swycr he did not use the theodolite, but one of Dundas’s, which had a somewhat similar cam. In Southland he was engineer for the contr actor for the railway, but ceased that engagement in ISGS. Ho had not used a theodolite since then, Dne peculiarity in tlao telescope was the hollow for the eyepiece to lit into the lent not cut quite true, which might not occur in one in a th hi sand instruments ; another was the vertical arc, on being reversed, throw the line of cobma tinn a little out. He had not seen that effect in another. He noticed the abrasions caused by using the instrument, and observed the same difficulty in putting the instrument into its box, as he lin'd expcrienc d on previous occasions. He suspected it was hia instrument on the 9th or Kith of F. fc- ■ rua ,- y, and was confirmed in his belief on the 13th. He never mentioned bis suspicions to Mr Millar. lie remembered vaguely there bad been some unpleasantness about the theodolite sent to .Mrs Alpcnny, but was not clear on the subject. He did not mention the matter to Mr Miliar when he to d linn ho should leave his employ, and left while he was in Dunedin taking the theodolite with him. There would be very little difference between the box produced and others by the same maker. He considered taking the theodolite rather an eccentric proceeding. Mr Barton objected to the defendant’s saying wln-th' r he ever dressed in female clothing. He could not remember whether he was convicted of an offence against the Vagrant Ordinance. He did not recollect whether he paid the LS IDs advanced by Mrs Alpcnny on the theodolite. He had not paid the money be borrowed in Cam aru before leaving, and had no conversation with Mr and Mrs Howard before bringing the theodolite away. He mentioned to Mr Millar tint an instrument of his had been sent to Dunedin, and Was lost in a lire. In answer to Mr Barton, the witness said he had had an intrigue with a servant-girl, and being found on the piemises, was convicted under the Abigra t Act Airs Howard, when examined, said the plaintiff had never neglected to pay any amount duo to her. She had advanced L 8 10s on the theodolite, and Mr Millar exp cssed himself very sorry, and offered to reimburse tbo. money. She brought the action against Mr Aliilar to clear her own character. In-cross-examination, she said when Mr Irvine called on her the day after the theodolite was left with her, she had a conversation with him about it. She detained it to clear her character, and had it opened in the p’cscnce of witnesses. G. B. Howard would swear it was the h»x, although he could not distinguish it from any other. It was ridiculous te ask the number or shape of the indents in the box. The spots of ink were on. but he did not recognise it by them, as they miffiit have been put on since, John A. Connell, of the firm of Connell and Mood'C, could recognise any instrument he was constantly in the habit of using. He would not say so if ho had not used it for years. Elliott’s theodolites were as common as others. Ho had only come across two. The cases did nob vary much. He would not nn iertake to recognise any instrument after being used eight 3'oars by another person, as certain peculiarities of action were developed in one person’s hand-i which would not appear if used by another. ~ edidnot observe anything peenhar about that produced. There was no difficulty in placing the instrument in the box. It was perfect’y easy to do so, nearly every surveyor loses (he plumb-bobs after a short time. The cobwebs were so deranged, that if it were his instrument he should have them taken out. He never saw the plaintiff before yesterday. AV. Pcrcival valued the instrument in London at L3O. He would not lend one unless on dt posit of the value, for if one fell and was injutc l, it would bo difficult to repair. A. H. tvoss, was by profession an optician and philosophical instrument maker. Although instruments bore one maker’s name, they differed through the employment of different workmen. Even Elliott’s theodolites would differ one from another. If he was in the habit of using an instrument he would recognise it years niter. The peculiarity the plaintiff referred to was common to all thcodo'itns. It was made for fixing the centre of the lens, and it was probable the spider-web might have been change 1 several times. The imperfection could not have existed any length of time. It was not a question of make. If he had been using it two months he could have discovered marks of identification during it. Ten shillings a week would nob be too much for the hire, but, if for years, a fair per centage on its va’ne would be sufficient. S. Mir,oils would not undertake to say that lie could identify a theodolite five years after lie had ceased to use it. Owing to pressure on our space, we are unable to give the evidence for the defence to-day. The judgment was for the defendant.