RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2918, 26 June 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq.,'R.M.)

Civil Cases.

Friedlisch v. Cain—L3 9s sd, for groceries supplied. Judgment by default for plaintiff, together with costs.

Buckingham v. Haynes.— L 6 12s, cash lent. Judgment by default for plaintiff, together with costs. Keat v. Wye.—L4 ISs, quantities of ale and porter supplied. Judgment by default for plaintiff, together with costs. Clark v, Brough.—L43 6s sd, for education of Archie Williamson. Mr Stout for the plaintiff ; Mr Haggitt for the defendant. The case, as stated by Mr Stout, was that the defendant having several illegitimate children, by a woman named Williamson, his housekeeper, had paid for their education jointly with the mother, and especially that of the boy Archie, who was ultimately placed by the mother under the care of the plaintiff, a schoolmaster. In the end Mrs Williamson married and went to America, leaving the children, four of whom wore boarded near Pigroot by defendant, and the boy Archie was left with Mr Clark, who sought to recover the sura claimed for his board and education. S. M. Clark, schoolmaster at Anderson’s Bay, said the boy was placed under his care on the 13th January, 1871, and remained a year. He was placed under his care by Mrs Williamsen, and he had taught him formerly witli two other of the same family when he was schoolmaster at Clyde. 3he boy lived while there with Mr Brough. The school fees were regularly paid by the children, or if payment was delayed, the children always said it was because Mr Brough had not given them the money. He had seen the child apply to Mr Brough for money to pay the fees, when it was given him. Mrs Williamson was living at that time with Mr Brough, during the whole time the children were at school. She lived with him asd kept house for him. Mr Stout read extracts from a letter addressed by the defendant to Mrs Williamson, in order to establish agency. The extracts were:—“My dear Lizzy,—l tried several commencements, but had to come back to the old one ; for, although you arc another man’s wife, I cannot forget that you are the mother of my children. Your telegram received to send the boys to Pigroot by this coach. I saw them this morning, and they are all well. I received Mr Clark’s account, which I returned to him. Had it been a debt due by me to you, it would have been paid long since. Mr Macassey tells me that if I will pay L 3 a week I shall bo relieved from further liability, and for that sum the children can be accommodated. Is Archie to be left behind, or do you take him to South America ? ”

The letters presented were not admitted as evidence of liability. Cross-examined by Mr Haggitt : Witness was asked by letter from Mrs Williamson whether he would take the boy. He was sent to him. Mrs Williamson had since married a Mr Percy. Mrs Williamson never, to his knowledge, went by the name of Mrs Brough. Eleanor Lydia Clark, wife of the plaintiff, resided at Clyde. Mrs Williamson lived there some eighteen mouths, where one child was born. All the children and Mrs Williamson livecl with Mr Brough, Mr Haggitt moved for a norisuit, on the ground that thp defendant was not liable for the debt, as Mrs Williamson having married her husband was liable, and thus Brough was relieved. Me specially denied the child in question being his, and there had been no proof that Mrs Williamson acted as Brough’s agent, for she had never passed as bis wife,

Mr Stout replied, and was answered by Mr Haggltt. His Worship considered the claim was founded on a contract nlade clearly with Mrs Williamson, and there was not sufficient in the evidence to connect the defendant with the claim. The liability now lay on Mr Percy. He did not consider there was sufficient ground to call upon the defendant to answer. The plaintiff was nonsuited, without costs.

Sandiland v. -Tames.—L3 13s, for goods supplied and labor done. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount with costs.

Eosshotham v. James,—Lll Bs. Mr Stout for the plaintiff. Mr Harris for the defendant. This was an action brought to recover the amount of stakes alleged to have been won by the horse Saladin, as second in a race on the Forbury race-course. The stake won amounted to Ll2, less 5 per cent. Mr Stout, in stating the case, said the principal , point to be decided would be the interpretation of a certain rule of the Jockey Club, which provides that if a horse be led away from the scales before the jockey is declared weight, no saddle or bridle or anything else shall be afterwards taken off the horse to be weighed with him, in order to render him weight. The jockey was weighed before starting, and was declared so to be; the horse started and came in second, and in returning tothesxddling paddock, the jockey jumped off the horse, went into the weighing-room, was weighed after a bridle was handed to him and declared due weight. His contention was that whether the horse was led away or not, such is the arrangement of the saddling paddock that a horse could not have been led away so as to justify the penalty attempted to he enforced. There were no weighing yards and therefore the rule could not be enforced. Under those circumstances he considered the plaintiff was entitled to recover. Robert Eosshotham in his evidence said he was owner of Saladin, that came in second at the Birthday Handicap run on the Forbury course on the 24th May. After the race, Saladin was brought in front of the weighing room, the rider was ordered out of the saddle to weigh. The weighing yard is 166 feet long by 105 feet wide. The scales were placed in the Secretary’s office. A horse could not get into the office. There were no other weighing yards or paddock but those he had described. The jockey walked into the office and was weighed, but omitted taking in his bridle. He was not weight, and Mr Dowse asked him, “Are you not weight ?” The jockey said “ No, I want my bridle,” He remained in the scale, and Mr Dowse, one of the stewards, went out and took the bridle off Saladin, and gave it into the jockey’s hand as he stood on the scale. As soon as it was given into his hand, the secretary, S. James, said “light,” and ticked it off on his book. A protest was lodged, but he was not made aware of it so as to give any explanation. He was standing by the secretary’s shoulders.—ln crossexamination by Mr Harris, the witness said he was one of the stewards. He saw the pregramme and entered, fHe was not aware of the conditions—“ The decision of the stewards to be final; ” “ Dunedin Jockey Club rules strictly adhered to.” He entered his horse on those conditions. He was aware of rule No. 40, which states that “ A jockey who receives from any person any article, however trifling, after he pulls up, ft'though he may have dropped it previous to being weighed, shall be disqualified from riding any race for such time as the Club shall decide ; and the horse shall not be placed in the race.” He heard that Mr G outlay had lodged a protest against the horse; hut in conversation he was told by Mr Gourlay he had withdrawn it. He had nothing to complain of in the conduct of the stewards excepting their decision. He was at a meeting of the stewards : there the question was discussed. He did not tender any evidence. He gave the stewards notice not to pay the money to Mr Gourlay. Messrs Caleb Moore, Thos. Thompson, Tanner (rider of Saladin), Arthur Smith, Geo. Do Ison, and John Garnett, were examined, but we are obliged to hold over their evidence.