RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2544, 13 April 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Yesterday. : (Before A> G.,Strode, Esq., R.M.) l ’ ; V Civil Cases,

The following is the evidence for the defence in the case of- Jrvine v. Millar :—) Mr Haggitt, for the defence, said the coach faro and other items being aba denied, the; only course open to the plaintiff was to bring an action of trover for the recovery of the theodolite or its value, and such damages as had a earned in consequence of detention of property. After quoting precedents, ho allowed that even should t.he : Bench consider the theodolite the property of the plaintiff, no. damages or merely nominal could be awaiv ded. The defence, however, was that the: theodolite wasjtlie defendant’s oivu property. Mr Ilaggitt commented upon the evidence adduced, and pointed out that the 'manner and matter of it were alike conclusive in favor of the defendant. John Millar the defendant, claimed the box and theodolite, which he obtained in 1863, of Charles Owen, once resident engineer of the Great Western Railway. He could not say the plaintiff never had possession of the instrument, some years ago, as he had frequently lent it to Mr Swyer, by whom the plaintiff was employed. He did not recognise the mark of a T upon the box,- but having used the box occasionally to: stand on, the marks on the lid might have been made by-nails in the boots. He believed conscientiously the plaintiff was not sound of mind. If is brother had died in tho Asylum. Ho could not say whether thei theodolite claimed by the plaintiff ever reached Airs Alpenny after the lire, although,- asho found other iusti’U-

nleinta in her possession, of which she had no .knowledge, he thought it highly probable. T3e did not think she intended anything the evidence she had given. She never observed T I on the box while it was in her possession. Mrs Howard was recalled, but her evidence was not material. James Clarke; light-keeper at the Taiaroa Heads, I remembered being sent to Mrs Alpenny’s for a small case in 1565, but could not recognise that produced as the same. He never told Mrs Alpenny that he bad frequently seen it afterwords. He fetched a box and legs. His Worship commented on the evidence — From the evidence before him, he considered • the view taken by the defendant was the most probable. The evidence of Mrs Howard only went to recognising having soon such a box as that produced. Mr Howard’s was unsatisfactory in manner, and his evidence was utterly valueless. The evidence of Clarke turned the, scale in favor of the defendant. That for the identification of the instrument were very weak and unreliable. Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount paid into Court. The plaintiff to pay costs. Turs Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R. M.) CHARGE -OT. USING ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. John Cochrane was charged, on the information of language on the Blueskin road, . calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. The defendant admitted the charge and agreed to sign a written promise not to annoy the in--1 formant more. After some, hesitation, the 1 ' informant decided to proceed-with’tjie prose? cutioh. The words complained* or- were of the coarsest, and reflected'ou the informant , and his wife. Evidence was given, in sup- ' . port of the charge. The defendant was 1 fined 20s and costs, Civil Case. Connor v. Rose Smith—L3 13s, for arrears for tent. Judgment. by default for plaintiff for the amount with costs. .