RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3432, 20 February 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, February 19. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.) The Dunedin Waterworks Company appealed against the assessment, by the Waikari Road Board, of that portion of the company’s property which was situate in the W aikari Road district, the property being assessed at Ll2l 19s (id ; while, on behalf of the company, it was contended that the equitable amount was L7O 16s Bd. Mr Macassey supported the appeal, and Mr Stout appeared for the Road Board. The following evidence was given William Johnston, clerk to the Waikari Road Hoard, said the property assessed comprised sections 80, 90, and 92, Waikari, containing 31 acres 2 roods. The assessment of Messrs Barr and Ross, the B>ard s valuators, was gross annual value, L 3,315 ; net annual value, L 3,225 15s. The previous year’s valuation was—gross annual value, L2 400; net annual value, L 2,160. The Board struck a rate of 9,d in the Ll.— Mr Moodie valued the land assessed as fo. iug worth L 25 to L3O an acre. —MrR, Gillies made a similar ,valuation, exclusive of improvements pn wqrks, apd buildings. The latter were worth about L3OO • the works cost about L 13,000 or L14,Q00. ? The rise iu the company’s shares during the past twelve months was exactly f per cent. They now saleable in the open market at LI6, which was the highest figure they were ever sold for.—Mr M‘Gregor 0.8. valued the land at L 25 an acre, and the value of the company’s work on the land he assessed at Ll7,ooo.—Mr Blair, C.E. estimated the present value of the works for sale at L 16,100, exclusive of land. He did not value the water-rights, because he did not consider himself competent to do so. Mr A. J. Smyth valued the works at L 15.201), and would be willing to construct them for that figure, —For the defence, Messrs T. Dick (secretary of the company), W. Barr, and A. H. Ross (the Road Board valuators), were examined. The former said the company, when negotiating for a sale of the works to the City Council, asked a premium of L 25.000, The company’s income for 1872 Mas L 5.023 ; in 1873, L 7.900, but not one penny was derived from Waikari.—The valuators considered their valuation, which was based on the fact that the company’s last dividend was 12 per cent., was a just one.—His Worship reserved judgment. Friday, February 20. ( {Before A. 0. Strode, Esq., R.M.) OF THE Railway Bye-Laws.— William Hpm-y'fioss pleaded guilty to V charge of getting jutp a t>*am ou the Port Chalmers railway line while it was iu motion. —His Worship said this offence was getting very rife, and that the law prohibiting it was a very necessary one. Accused would be fined 30s and costs. Theft.—Thomas Kennedy was charged with stealing a silver watch, chain, and locket, from one John Hussell, laborer, at Green Island. Mr M‘Keay appeared for accused.—Prosecutor stated that on the night ofJanuary 2 be was ‘'keeping the Rew Year” at the Prjnce of Wales Hotel, and on going home his watch was misdug Had never seen accused, and knew nothing about him.—Abraham -'olomon, pawnbroker, said the accused wanted him to advance L 4 on the watch, &c., produced. Witness knew by an advertised description that the property was stolen, and said he would not advance more than L2. Accused then went away to fetch a mate of his, and on returning the two agreed to take L2 ss. Wit ness asked the second man, who said the watch was his, what his name was. JR answered, “George Stewart, laborer Oamaru.” Witn’ess then went for a constable, on which the man Stewart went

away, but accused stayed and was given into custody.—Bub-Inspector Mallard asked for a remand, in order that SteWatt might be found, but Mr M'Keay objected, as he had evidence which would show in the clearest manner that accused was innocent of the charge. Edward Holmes, landlord of the do c 'ert Burns Hotel, said that accused had been in the habit of staying at his hotel for a ‘me months past, and tint yesterday even* ing Stewart came in and produced the watch, asking witness to lend him money on it. Witness declined, and then accused advised Stewart to take it to a pawnbroker, offering to go with him. Stewart agreed, and sent accused on 61 st, but he returned saying he could only 30s on it. Stewart then went out with accused. Witness had no reason to believe that accused had any previous knowledge of .Stewart or any connection with the possession of the property. His Worship thought accused was entitled to the benefit of the doubt which surrounded the circumstances of the case, and dismissed him, cautioning him to avoid in future pawning watches for other people, but to lot them “do their own dirty work.” His Worship also stated that the property must for the time be held by the police while they endeavor to find Stewart. CIVIL CASES. Law, Somner, and Co. v. A. ,T. L. Augarde,—Claim Ll9 15s 2d, balance of account for grass seed supplied. Judgment for plaintiff, by default, for amount claimed, with costs. McLennan v. James Manning.—Claim L3O, for dishonored cheque. Mr James Smith appeared for plaintiff, Mr Joyce for defendant.—The evidence of plaintiff, who is an engineer at Clyde, was read. It was to the effect that the cheque was a post-dated ( mo, given by defendant for six shares in the defunct Pneumatic Goldming Company. —Mr Joyce asked for a nonsuit, on the grounds that the cheque was really in this case a bill of exchange, and therefore was insufficiently stamped; and that although plaintiff, as stated in his evidence, had advanced money to the oonipany, that did not give him power to take the securities of the company and sue thereon.—Mr Smith here said that he would concede Mr Joyce’s first point, and plaintiff was nonsuited. Bing, Harris and Co. v. Friedlander and Sheen —Claim, L 25 9s lid, balance of dishonored acceptance. Mr Howorth for plaintiffs, Mr Stout for the defendant Hieen.— T. S. Graham, member of plaintiffs’ firm, stated that after defendants had dissolved partnership Friedlander weut insolvent and paid a composition of 10s in the pound. Plaintiffs received this amount on their acceptance, but did not release them from his liability for half of the acceptance, and this was the amount now claimed.—After argument by Mr Stout, his Worship nonsuited plaintiffs.