Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Monday, March’ 30. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) Drunkbnhbss.— Joseph Herman was dig. charged with a caution ; and John Campbell fined 20a, with the option of three days’ imprisonment. Emma Jackson, on bail, not appearing, ,a warrant was issued for her apprehension. At a later stage of the proceed* ings prisoner was brought up on warrant, and discharged with a caution, as she had been informed that after being bailed out it was not necessary to appear. Mary,Jarvey, charged with this offence, denied ths charge, and said that ■he could prove differently. It was totally nntrue, as on Saturday she only came from East Taieri, where she had been in service for the past five weeks.—His Worship (to the apprehending. constable); How many previous convictions are there against this Woman?— Prisoner: About twenty-nine your Worship ; all arising from drink.— Constable 'Grant stated that there were fffwrfiwxi, when forpibjy ; t*yihg to get into

Krull’s hotel.—Prisoner stated that she was drunk, but was not a vagrant.—Hia Worship explained that when persons were convicted under the Vagrancy Act, and conducted themselves in a riotous and indecent manner, they were looked upon as rogues and vagabonds. He was afraid on that information, he could not fine prisoner, as her conduct had not been sufficiently riotous.—She was then charged with drunkenness, pleaded guilty, and was fined L2, or fourteen days’ imprisonment. CIVIL CASKS. In the following cases judgment went by default for the amount claimed, together with costs : Isaacs and Marks v, Mahoney. —-L4 16s for clothing supplied; Trcvena v. Brown, L 7 IDs for harness supplied. Lawson v. Rees, -Claim, L2 10s. The debt was admitted, and judgment given for the amount claimed with costs.

r o? 0 ” 11 v * Dalr >’ m P le —An action to recover L 37 13s 9d, alleged exorbitant and unnecessary charges claimed by defendant in executing a mortgage.—Mr Stout for plaintiff; Mr Stewart for defendant.—Mr Stout stated that the charges were so exorbitant that plaintiff had to bring the matter before the Court to have the items reduced.—G-. F. Reid stated that ho acted as plaintiff’s agent to get a mortgage settled for L 2.700, defendant acting as Mr Trotter’s .agent.- Was to receive all moneys except defendant’s reasonable charges. Had received L 2.635 6s 3d of the amount and a bill for the balance. Did not think any of the items according to the bill w;ere correct, orwere in accordance with the Act.—William Dalrymple had'the work for which L 3 was claimed, done on' Mr Trotter’s authority. The work was done by Mr Trotter on witness’s behalf. Acted in the matter in' three capacities—land agent, land broker, and money broker. The whole of the charges were fair and legal, and were necessary in the execution of the matter, btill retained some money held for anticipatory expenses.—Mr Stewart contended that plaintiff had no right to sue till the contract was fulfilled. Were the Bench to abide by the charges defined hy the Act, it would be putting an interpretation on it never intended by the Legislature. He asked that plaintiff be non-suited, as it was in evidence that his part of the contract—the security—was incomplete.—Mr Stout contended that the application for a non-suit must bo at once dismissed, Dalrymple having, according to his own evidence, appropriated some of the money which he held in his hands to hia own use.—Mr Dalrymple : That is false ; I swear it is. If I : am out of order I will be stopped.—His Worship informed Mr Dal rymple if he had anything to say his counsel • would represent the facts for him.—The non-anit point was overruled.—ln reply to Mr Stewart, his Worship said that ho would discountenance all changes which he found Were, anticipatory. Landbrokers were following in the wake of lawyers—(laughter)—and if he found that defendant could justify the charges as being fair, then judgment would be in his favor; if otherwise, it would' be against him.—John A. Connell, surveyor, said that when business done was specified in the Act, they charged the, scale rates; when not mentioned’in the-scale rate, what they considered a fair and reasonable price. As far as he was aware, the license did not limit them to the particular district in which they were located. Always made an arrangement previous to doing any work beyond the Act as to the amount to be charged. He thought the Act did not preclude them from making extra charges ; if anyone demurred to pay the charge proposed after the work had been completed, he would. consult, Mr , Stewart.—(Laughter.)—James Rattray said that it was a rule for public companies to have the property to be brought under the Act surveyed.His Worship said that the first item, L 3 ss, must be deducted. While he admitted that it was a rule in Investment Societies to have a general survey, it was not a rule with private companies to have such done. That a mort- ’ gagee’a survey must be given might be a matter of, stipulation, and in this case it seemed to be such. In reference to the next item he considered that it was a case of some hardship, but still he could only be .allowed a pound, as he was tied down by the Act, and no matter what was a fair and reasonable sum, defendant could only •get what was allowed by law. He would ;have to take off L 3 4s. Then came the collateral mortgage, LI ss, which was prepared and executed for plaintiff—Ll allowed. His ; Worship, however, did not think that the .document was worth one single farthing. It was alleged by defendant that the mortgagees sent out blank forms, which were returned in blank and executed before a Justice of the Peacjs. ...How any Justice could take a signature to a blank paper he icould not understand. The authority to uplift the Crown grant was a mere copy of the 1 ‘ Gazette,’ and could not be chargedfor as an ;officiaj document, and 7s 6d claimed. Item .disallowed. Attendance survey office disallowed. The, claim of 10s 6d for calling on ;Mr Reid must be deducted , as the plaintiff was not benefitted by the call. Judgment lor plaintiff fpr Lls 19s 8d (amount deducted) with costs.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18740330.2.14

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Evening Star, Issue 3464, 30 March 1874, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,041

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Evening Star, Issue 3464, 30 March 1874, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Evening Star, Issue 3464, 30 March 1874, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert