Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume VI, Issue 72, 27 November 1884, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court

Wednesday, Novkmbeb 26th, 1884. (Before It. Ward, Esq., E.M.) CRIMINAL. Esteven Bellve, proprietor of the Empire Hotel, was charged with a breach of the Licensing Act by supplying two pints of beer to one Louisa Cook on Sunday, 23rd instant. Defendant pleaded guilty. His Worship said he was not sure whether the clause of the Act tinder which the action was brought was not repealed by the Police Offences Act, of which he had not been furnished with a copy, and he could not therefore order an endorsement of the license, but would fine defendant 10s and costs. He told the defendant the offence must not occur again. Maurice K. Samuel, proprietor of the Endymion Hotel, Awahuri, was charged on the information of Constable Gillespie with unlawfully using his house for the purpose of betting with persons resorting thereto. Mr Prior appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Edwin John Cottrell deposed as follows : — On Monday, 11th instant, went to Samnel's Hotel between 1 1 and 12 noon ; met Jackman and Cameron there with Samuel ; thought he stayed there till 3 ; had refreshment there ; an argument took place between Jackman and witness; had a few drinks, and perhaps was not as he should have been ; the word " demasticate" came out, and Samuel said there was no such word in the dictionary ; a bet of £1 was offered, but couldn't say if it was by Samuel or himself ; it turned out after it was for £5; they each wrote a cheque, and Jackman held them ; cheque produced for £5 was in witness' writing ; wrote one cheque and crossed it, but Samuel said it would not. do ; felt sure be wrote another, and on Tuesday was going to Awahuri to see about it and met Jackman, who said witness had lost the bet ; Samuel said the word was not in the dictionary ; Jackman presented the cheque to witness next morning, saying he had got it from Samuel. Cross-examined : Might have wanted to bet Samuel 20 to 1 that the word was right ; didn't know if he refused to take it and offered to bet £1 ; went to Mr Staite for advice on the cheque, who did not advise him to go to the constable and take those proceedings. Edward Jackman deposed to being at the hotel, and the dispute arising abont the word " demasticate" ; Cottrell offered to bet £20 there was such a word; Samuel said if he was so sure he would bet £1, and Cottrell offered to bet £5 ; cheques for that amount from th 9 two were handed to witness ; when it was found the word was wrong witness handed fclie money over to Sfamuel ; Cottrell was was not drunk. Cross-examined : Cottrell said, after hihad lost the bet,, the cheque was a bogus • »ne, and was no good even if he had lost; Cottrell was not so incapable as not to know what he was doing. By the constable . Would swear Cottrell was not drunk. Mr Prior contended there was no case whatever for him to answer, and the charge was a most trivial and ridiculous one, and which did not come within the meaning of the Act, the intention of which was to prevent houses being used purposely for betting. He submitted that no conviction could be made without a great stretching of the Act. He regarded it simply as a case of persecution, and asked that the charge miuht be dismissed on the ground of its being altogether of too paltry a nature. His Worship said he was not there to consider the policy of the Act but to administer it, and he ruled that there was a case for the defence. Mr Prior then called Thomas Fraser who deposed to seeing Cottrell near the hotel several times on the day in question; he seemed quite capab'e as late as 3 i i the afternoon. By the Constable: Would certainly say Cottrell was not drunk ; that was his ioiprecsion. but he would not swear one way or the other. His Worship was satisfied the oftvnee had been committed, and he must fine defendant 40s and costs. Maurice E. Samuel wss further charged on the information of William Sydney Staite of Feilding with feloniously receiving un or about February last from one Robert Titcombe one black twill coat, the property of one James Ewinjr, of the value of £2, which had been feloniously stolen from the said James Ewing, the defendant well knowing the same to be stolen. Mr Esam appeared for the defendan', who pleaded not guilty. Mr Staite opened the case on behalf of j Ewing, on whose behalf on account of i Ewing's absence at the time he bad laid ! the information. Robert Titcombe deposed : He was a tailor ; a coat was given to him by Ewing ; , to be repaired about February last ; sold it to Samuel while he (witness) was under the influence of drink ; got two or three , shillings for it, as far as he could recol- ] lect, aad spent the money in the bar , immediately; the coat was worth £1 or ( 255. j Cross-examined : Did not take the coat to Samuel 18 months ago ; would swear ( it was since last Chnsimas; Samuel j bought the coat off witness' back ; didn' , know if he told ' Samuel whose coat it * was, nor what he said as he was drunk * at the- time ; there had been three swops t of coats between him and Samuel, and he got the coat in question bae'e again and sold it to a Maori for about 6s ; mett c Kwing the day after he sold the coat to , Samuel, and lie said Samuel had his coat . on and that it would do to square the £2 he- owed Samuel c James Ewing deposed: He was a bushnian residing at Awaborij two or c

three months before February last waf boarding at Samuel's hotel ; owned the coat the subject of the information \ paid 42s tor it at Palmerston ; had worn the coat in the hotel about a month; wouldn't say that Samuel must hare known it was witness' coat; saw Samuel with the coat on, who said he bought it from Bob the tailor for half a crown, and knew it was witness' coat. Cross-examined : Beliered the transaction about the coat was in February of last year ; off and on had boarded at the hotel about eight months; had since Februarj giren Samuels orders on Messrs Prior and Sandilands for sums amounting to about £80 ; till lately had been on fhe . most friendly terms with defendant ; with a full knowledge that Samuel had got his coat, he made a swop with Titcombe about the coat ; had not made an offer of compromise about the matter [a letter from Mr Staite t* defendant, offering to accept a compromise, was here read]'; had nerer asked Samuel to return the • coat.. .:. " J Mnch of this witness' evidence was not relevant, and it concluded the case for the prosecution. Mr Emm a»ked His Worship to decide whether the case was one to go before •> jury or to be dealt with summarily, as if (he former he would not be entitled to call defendant. /,.•■ j His Worship was satisfied the ralne of the article in question was not 40s, and could be dealt with summarily. He hud not conclosire evidence of the charge and must therefore dismiss it simply without costs, but a certificate of the dismissal would be granted. CiriL CASES. E. J. Cottrell v F. T. Kenny-^Glatni £ 1 15* No appearance of defendant who sent a letter explaining his position and offering f o pay by two instalments! in Janruary ond Feburarj next Ordered to be paid within one week with costs. Fraser Bros r Tura Hoeta— Claim £65 10s on a dishonored promisory note. Through the interpreter, Mr Baker, de 7 fendant admitted the debt, and consented to a jugdment being entered; Order made accordingly for amount and costs: Same r Hoeta, father of previ6us ; defendant.—Claim £2 16» 7d. There was a charge for interest, which the Bench disallowed, as this was oniy mentioned in English onfplaintiiFs billheads, and had not been explained to defendant. Judgment for £2 lls 6d and costs.;: ;j ' D. B. Lewers t E. W. Morphy.— Judgment summons for £9 6s 7d -This' case, which had already been adjonrned fonr times, was again adjourbei till next Court day. { . James Ewing r M. K. Samuel.— Claim £100 Mr Staite appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Esam for defendant. Mr Staite opened his case, after which Mr Esam called attention to the seVeral particulars of the claim, which he. icon., sidered to be of a very rague and meagre description, and not sufficiently explicit* to warrant the present action, and asked, for an adjournment. - ; -.;••• j j Mr Staite briefly replied, contendingthat the items were sufficiently clear, and had been made out in accordance with: law and rule. __ " ' :< ' The Bench thought there was some grouds for Mr Esam V contention as. to' the particulars not being sufficiently clear,' and thought the case should be adjourned/" either till later in the day or till the next, (.'ourt day. Mr Staite offered to famish further particulars if the case were adjourned, till later in the day. , Mr Esam again urged for an adjournment till another Court day, as he was' not prepared to defend the case. Adjourned till next Court day; -th» question of costs to be reserved. M. 1L Samuel v James r Ewing.-^ ; - Claim on dishonord promisory note for/ £18 Bs. Mr Esam appeared for plaintiff, / and Mr Staite for defendant. Mr Staite called attention to the lawin i he matter, which required tbat.immel . diate notice shonld be given ofa note ' being dishonored both to the drawer and endorser, which had not been done in this case. -■■ ' ' ■■.■:■■ ;:.: Plaintiff wa» examined and cross- :> examined with reference to the note and ' showed how the claim for the amount; arose ; would decline to answer if he had * gambled with defendant, who was sober when lie signed the note ; it was plaintiff's proposal to have the note instead of a cheque ; altered the note from one month to one week in defendant's presence and with his knowledge, but did not initial it, as he did not consider it necessary as he-, did not consider it necessary as he thought he was dealing with an honest man. . . « ,' Witness was re-examined <on several - points of the case. Henry Ealph FitzHerbert. manager of the Bank of New Zealand. Feilding, deposed that th» note Was presented at the Bank but was not paid as the term of the note had been altered in writing but not intialled ; that was the only reason it was not paid. W. A. Sandilands, solicitor, of FeikKngv : deposed to the firm of Prior and SandU lands receiving sereral orders from Ewing to pay Samuel various sums, amounting in all to about £80; but would not endorse an order for the amount in question as he anticipated gome guch) difficulty in the matter as that now before the Court. Hugh Cameron, fenser, of Awahuri, leposed to Ewin« saying he was prepared o settle this claim, and hearing the agree, aaent for a note for the amount to bejiven, which was signed in witness* iresenee by defendant, who was sober at he time. This closed the pontiff's case. Mr Staite said the defence was— no tonsideration, the insinuating manner in rh eh .ndueement *as held out to lefendant to sign the note, and that th» lonsideration so-called was illegal. James Ewin^, ihe defendant, was xamined, am] deposed l» beiug asked

, to sign the n>te while somewhat under the influence of drink, but he knew what he was doing ; believed the term one week on the note was mutually agreed on; sometimes gambled with Samuel, who often lent him money for the purpose; he had several times supplied him with liquor while witness was under the influence of drink ; on his oatli he had been supplied by plaintiff with liquors that Were uufit to drink. In the cr6ss-examination a long list of items charged by plaintiff to defendant were read to witness, who was asked to name one of them which had connection with gambling, and he said he thought an item of 11s 6d was for the purpose of " shilling in and winner shout" ; by some means or other he got his signature on the note, but couldn't tell how it got there ; thought he must have been drunk or mad ; on his oath he had no recollection of signing the note. [Witness was here csked to sign his name on paper, and the Bench said the signature were very much alike.] Mr Staite now addressed the Court, and applied for a judgment for the defendant or a nonsuit on the several grounds above mentioned. Mr Esam lengthily replied, contending that there was a good consideration, that the consideration was a legal one, and that the defendant knew what he was doing when he signed the note, and that the transaction was all in good faith. His Worship, after careful consideration, did not think he could grant Mr Staile's application for a judgment for the defendant or for a nonsuit. He was not pleased with the case on the whole, and thought it reflected somewhat upon Mr Samuel. He should deduct £11 5s 6d for drinks, which he considered plaintiff had induced defendant to take and would give judgment for £7 2s 6il, without order For costs. The Coart thpn adjourned.