RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3582, 15 August 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, August 14. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness,— Joseph Green was discharged with a caution ; John Anderson was fined 20s with the option of three days’ imprisonment. Theft. William Bartlett was charged with stealing four brackets, of the value of 10s, the property of Messrs North and Seoullar,—Mr North said that prisoner hai been in his employ as Pi each-polisher for about twenty months. He discharged him about two months ago for drunkenness. Their firm had lost goods within the past six months, of the value of L3O. On August fi, a man named Davis came to his shop, and offered him the two pairs of brackets (now produced) for sale. Witness immediately •dentified them as his property, and asked Davis where he got them. Davis repliel that he got them irom a new-chum. From something witness said, Davis went away, and returnnd in about half-au-hour with prisoner. The latter said he was a witness to the man Davis buying them from a newchum—John Morris by name. Witness replied that it was a oock and bull story, and that he would not believe it, and unksi tho new-chum were found, he would put the matter iu the hands of the p dice.—: vidence was given by Albert I eck, furniture dealer, John Samuels, pawnbroker to Mrs Davies, aud Win. Brown, furniture dealer, that the brackets had been either offered lor sale or pledge to them by prisoner Win. Davis was then caTed. He said that he had been drinking with prisoner on the day in question. Diawing towards evening,- as they had no money, prisoner asked him to sell some brackets to Mr North, telling him to say that he purchased them from a new chum. North refused to purchase them. Prisoner was outside when he went into the shop.— Prisoner was sentenced to thirty days’ imprisonment.—There was a second charge against tho same prisoner of stealing three castors, the property of the same firm, of the value of 4s. —His Worship thought it would be as well to withdraw the charge, but HubInspector Mallard declined to do so, as Messrs North and Hconllar had lost goods to the extent of from L4O to Lso.—The case was adjourned till Tuesday. A charge against .William Davis, the man who had been with prlsouer on the day in question, of stealing four brackets, was withdrawn. Vagrancy —A charge against Elizabeth Mowbray, of having now lawful means of support, was adjourned 111 next day. HTIULINa Boom— Mary Dochig, eight years of age, was charged with stealing from the shop of Ed. Kemp M‘Liskey one pair of b -'Ota of the value of 17s. The charge was clearly proved, and prisoner was sent to the Industrial School for four years, and ordered to be instructed in the Homan Catholic form of religion. Maintenance. —HenryKent, of Hokitika, was charged on remand with leaving his wife and child without means of support.—An order was made for the payment of Ll per we;k.

CiyiL CASES. Edvard Howe y. A. J. Smytbe.—Claim L 63 9s 7d, for work and labor done and services performed on the Dunedin and Ciutha Hallway. Mr Stout for plaintiff, Mr Smith for defendant.—Mr Stout mentioned that part of the amount, L 43 8s 2d, was admitted. He did not know what dclencs could be raised.—Mr Smithy Never indebted.—Mr Stout then explained that Messrs Brogden apd Sous, the contractors, had no locus standi in the Colony, therefore the only person he oouhl site was their agent here, who now stated that the contract was made for Messrs Brogden and Sons, and that Mr Smytho personally was not indebted. To sue them they would have to tile an attachment! n the Supremo Court -a very expensive matter. If such defence were urged he would go to the Supreme Court Defendant had admitted that he had no power of attorney from Messrs Brogden and Sons if defendants wished to simply dispute the amount, and to raise no technical defence, he bad no objection to that being done. Before deciding whether to go to the Supreme Court, he would call Mr smythe to see what his authority was, iu case it should be necessary in future cates. The dispute between the parties was for the sum of LI9. It had been admitted that L 43 was due, and unless plaintiff refused to take what was offered, it was attempted to keep him out of his money. ■ Defendant wished to 'say, “ If you

don't take what We offer you hare no remedy.”—a. J Smythe was put in the box, and examined by Mr Stout. He said that to the best of his knowledge there was no such man as John Brogden. He was appointed an agent for the Province for Messrs Brogden and Sons by Mr James Brogden, one of the sons. He held no power of attorney. Mr Henderson, of Wellington, the agent for the Colony, had power of attorney. His engagement was signed by James Brogden on behalf of the firm.-By Mr smith : He objected on principal to pay the claim seeing that Messrs Brogden and Sons should have been sued.—Mr Smith had resisted service of the present summons simply because it was improperly served. He would accept service ou behalf of the* firm that day if the summons were properly drawn out. —Mr Stout would withdraw the summons, and sue Messrs Brogden and Sons. He submitted that it was not a case for co >ta. —llia Worship would allow the summons to be withdrawn without costs, but MrKmlth said that, seeing that costs were not allowed, he would withdraw his offer and resist the claim, on the ground that defendant was improperly served.—His Worship remarked that Messrs Brogden and Sons subjected per* sons working for them to a great deal of inconvenience, whereupon Mr Smith replied that it did not matter to his Worship, whose duty it was simply to administer the the law. The defence was that plaintiff must be nonsuited. Plaintiff stated that he understood that ho was engaged on behalf of Messrs Brogden and Sons; therefore their declared agent could not be held responsible. The firm should have been first proceeded against, and if the creditors were unsuccessful, then they might fall back on the agent.—His Worship said there was no doubt that che contract was made with defendant as agent for Brogden and Sons, and this being so, the only question was who was personally liable. Had the firm been so far a myth that they had no property in the Colony, then plaintiff would have been justified in taking up the first person he got hold of. Seeing that defendant was agent for the firm, he was not personally liable, but if the authority should be repudiate J, he might be sued.—Case dismissed, but without costs, seeing the groat hardship. Saturday, August 15. (Before T. Birch Esq., and J. Black, Esq.. J.P.’s) ' —Elizabeth Mowbray, charged with having no lawful means of support, was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment, with hard labor. Wipe-seating —George Rashton, charged with assaulting his wife, was discharged on his promise of future better behaviour towards her.