Feilding R.M. Court.

Feilding Star, Volume V, Issue 4, 10 January 1884, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court.

m* Wednesday, Janttabt 9th, 1884. (Before a. Ward, Esq., R.M.) PBOHIBITION OBDBR. Constable Price applied for an order under the prohibition clause ef the Licensing Act, against Samuel Rowley. — A notice had been served Upon defendant, but he did not appear. His wife gave evidence as to his frequent inebriety, and expressed, her with for an order, to* be made. '"" Constable Price gave c-rrobera tive evidence, addinu that defendant; 4_r ; his unsober habits was unfitting' himself for carrying on his business: • Order made to prohibit hotel-keeper.,, brewers, and all. vendors of intoxicating liquors supplying defendant ? peftonally with drink for the space of 12 months, the order to be in force in Feifdi-g, Palmerston, Bulls, and Hal combe. t CBI-HNi.L. ■,:'•-. „rT G. Younger was charged by I): Glueken. with using indecent language within hearing of persons passing in a public place. The. alleged defence took place at Kiwitea, on the 26th December last. • Mr Goedbehere appeared for>lthe prosecution. Accused who was undefended, pleaded not guilty. Females and you.g people were ordered to leave the Court. D. Glacken deposed: Oi. the evening of the 26th instant defendant came to his place, and used -the language contained in. the indictment, and which was unfit loir publi cation. Any person could Hear the words who happened to be passing. Witness was cross-examined by defendant, but neither the questions nor the answers were pertinent to the case. Mrs Glacken, wife ol prosecutor, corroborated his evidence. ......_.■ Her cross-examination by the focused brought out nothing very relevant, except to show that the parties had apparently been on unfriendly terms. For the defence A. Laing deposed as to accused ' not being out of temper, and that Mrs Glackan had used-i insulting language to defendant, who simnly told her to put a potato into her; month, on which she blackguarded him." By the Bench: Had had only a little conversation with Younger, and had \*o% been advised what questions would be* asked him by defendant. Mrs Glacken had been rude to witness, and they ana not particularly friendly. .', 'Cross-examined ' Heard Mrs Glacken call accused a spalpeen. yr Accused then made a staten.ent'to the effect that prosecutor's pigs, cows, and other stock were doing damage to hit tent and other property. He went and told him of it, and said he should expect him to pay £1 dainaces. Prosecutor denied his stock having done any'damage, and Mrs Glaeken enme ont Mid nsed certain provoking words* repeated. He totally denied having used 'the language with which he was charged. , - She called him a .spalpeen and other offensive names. ' ■ .■;• t*-- y-u?'. __. His Worship was not disposed tp^hiuk the prosecutor and his wife had perjured themsel ves, and felt bound to convict. Fine i £1 and costs; together, with solicitor's fee ; total £2 Bs, or 7 days in Wanganui Gaol. The money was iat* mediately paid. CIVIL CASES. fs Pybus r. B. T. Davif.—This -ease had ; already been twice before the Court, and in the second, instance; judgment had gone against the defendant. :. At the last sitting a application for a rehearing was granted on the ground that the defendant had sufferered a great disadvantage in having to give his evidence in 'Wanganui, and the case being in the' opinion of his Worship a peculiar ime,. fullyjustifying its being dealt with, __'_n exceptional way, although nor to 'bo regarded as a precedent. ■ The rl&im was for £5 14s 2d. Mr Prior for plaintiff aad Mr W. B. Hawkins for defendant/ It. T. Da vies gale such .evidence as showed the whole ease to be .ap-^ exceedingly complicated ane,. in which a number of persons, transactions, and accounts were mixed up. His replies in.examination and cross-examination, .were of very little pn bhe interest. u^vul Alexander Bell, of Halcoa.be, was examined at some length- On behalf of plaintiff. It came out that witness had sold certain book debts to plaintiff; amongst them being one against' the defendant for the amount named. . ' ' t roBB-examined : Witness denied' eartain statements. made by defendant .as to payns^nts made by him to witness before the disposal of the latter's book, debts to . plaintiff. Books were produced ..n proof '■> of his evidence. The amount in questien was part of an assignment of Mr'Se'igles estate to witness, and the latter folly and firmly believed, although he could not take an oath, that no settlement of the amount had ever yet been made ; had it been, it would have been ent«re.dLin the book produceds .......' Christian Seigle deposed:, jfife -was a resident of Halcombe ;. was- in. Dullness at one time with Mr Bell; Davies *asked him if he should pay the, amount in ques. ! ion to. jMr Bell ; told him' if he did it would be all right; afterwards saw Davies, who said he had made if all right with Bell; saw Bell some time afterwards, wh- said it was no such thing ; witness had assigned his debts to Bell |' did not sue Davies as he kept promising to pay. Cross - examined : [Witness stated nothing very material.] -. r f ■ :. Mr Hawkins summed up at some length, and< deprecated the non-produc-thm of another book .of Mr $ell. men- „ tioned in the evidence. * It''w__;'he said, ; ' apparent that there was a motive in that book not being produced; -and J^^d_it>%_» »n present there was no doubt, it would hive . proved the evidence of the. defendant us io certain payments made by him'id t _Sive been correct. He submitted that the' evidence of the defendant was, looking at

_____M|_MiM____________-sCT>ri«__--Bs-__W all the points of the case, the most probable, and he asked for a judgment in his favor. Mr Prior sifted the whole evidence, ; and pointed out tbe great improbability of the money having been paid. He contended that the book produced containing all transactions between Bell and Seigel during a certain time was sufficient evidence in itself, as it had been shown that if the jn.oney had been paid it must have been entered Jg^his book. He -asked for judgment His Worship regretted that Mr Bell had not brought the other book in question, but he was not inclined to think that ;.' lie. had hereby wilfully contemned the . v Court. He could not, however, even after bearing the fresh evidence that had been brought, see auy reason for disturbing ,- the judgment be had already given in the case, as he was still of the same opinion with reference to the claim. He must, therefore, give judgment for plaintiff with costs— total, SU 0s 2d. Tansley v Hawkins. - This was an application for taking evidence on a case to be heard at Foxton, in which it _p- • peered Messrs Hawkins and Son had 'filed a set -off against certain claims made on them for the serving of writs. W. A. Sandilands, .examined by Mr Hawkins, deposed: He was a solicitor of the Supreme Court, practising at Feilding; the proper fee allowed in taxation for serving any document in process of Supreme Court was 4s each ; if copies of a, writ were sent to Foxton to be served on lit defendants, six guineas would not >- , - v be* fair and reasonable charge unless by - 'agreement; would consider 24s sufficient; was speaking from personal experience, both in New Zealand and Victoria. . Witness's expenses were allowed, and , this closed the case. , ';■■ .Pope and Pearson v James McDonald. —Claim for £6 12s, for rent. Mr Warourton for plaintiffs. Defendant did not •appear, and it now turned out that his ;...■• -name was net James but John. Tbe ease was ordered to be enlarged for the ' right name to be given, and was therefore »et proceeded with. The Court then adjourned. mmmmmaemmmmammamamma