Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume VI, Issue 84, 27 December 1884, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court

WeDSTESDAY, DECEMBER 24, 1884. (Before R. Ward, Esq., R.M., and H. L. Sherwiß, Esq., J.P.) ASSATJXT. Geo. Foster was charged with assaulting Thomas Sexton, jun., at a Salvation Army meeting on December | 7th. Mr Sandilands appeared for complainant, who is a Salvationist, and Mr Staite for the defendant, who pleaded not gailty. Complainant gave evidence as to defendant striking him in the back and chest. Trod on defendant's toes, but not intentionally ; did not strike him with clenched fists ; though he was in the army he did not beUeve in fighting. Reuben Stubbington, another Salvationist, gave corroborative evidence. Frederick Klink said he saw a blow struck, but could not say where complainant was struck, nor whether the blow was heavy ; was not a member of the army. George Smith deposed to seeing defendant strike complainant on the chest with clenched fists. Cross-examined : Was a full private in the army ; the blow struck was quite heavy enough to kill a mosquito. Another soldier named Benjamin was called, but did not appear. For the defence Constable Gillespie deposed to Foster complaining to him about being assaulted by Sexton. Wm. Foster gave evidence of Sexton assaulting defendant by laying hande on him and using him roughly. John Ryan, who said that he was by occupation " a Christian," deposed to seeing Sexton hit Foster on the mouth, without provocation. Defendent, sworn, deposed to Sexton striking him on the Rp ; had given no provocation, and returned the blow. The Bench held defendant to blame in nursing his wrath, and putting off his retaliation, and he would be fined 10s, and costs 15s. [At this stage Mr Sherwill left the Bench.]' Samuel v Ewing. — This was a case of aUeged assault, and application for sureties of the peace, adjourned for from last court day, when the evidence for the complainant only was heard. Mr Staite now applied for the case to be dismissed, on the ground that complainant was not in danger. Mr Samuel still urged his application, and defendant was bound over in £20 te keep the peace for three months, and to pay aU costs. CIVIL CASES. Keen v Hughes. — Claim 15s. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff and costs. Same v R. Robinson. — Claim £2 18s. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. Judgment for amount and costs. Prior and Sandilands v Margaret Johnston. — Claim £2 1 Is. Order for payment and costs. Manchester Road Board v R. B. Fearon — Claim £8 7s sd. Same vCL A. Jackson — Claim £4 17s 6d. Same v Robert Johnston — Claim £2 6s. Judgment for plaintiffs and costs were given in each of the above cases; D. R. Lewers v R. W. Morphy. — Claim on judgment summons' for £9 6s 6d. Again adjourned. Same v James Laing. — Judgment summons for £9 9s 9d. Ordered to be paid within one month, or nine days' imprisonment. Prior and Sandilands v Jones. — Judgment summons for £2. Ordered to be paid forthwith, or three days' imprisonment. THE BTGGY CASE. Halcombe & Sherwill v T. Goodison. — Claim £57 7s. This was a case arising' out of the question as to the ownership of a certain trap. The case had been partly heard at Palmerston, whence it was adjourned to Feilding for further evidence. Defendant and Thomas CampbeU, of Sandon, were examined and crossexamined as to the transaction between Goodison and Malcolm about the purchase of the buggy, but their evidence was of Rttle interest except to the parties in the case, being chiefly to the effect that Malcolm owed Goodison some money, and handed over the buggy in Rev of payment. Henry Mitcheß, of Palmerston, gave similar testimony. This closed the defendant's case. For the plaintiffs, further evidence was given by James Linton, of Palmerston, who deposed to the trustees in the late firm of Malcolm, Flyger, and Co. instructing him to take over various goods, including the buggy in question ; sent for Goodison about it, who said he had a claim on it tiR his money was paid ; wrote to the trustees in Wellington about it, who authorised him to pay Goodison's claim, and recover the buggy ; defendant said Mrs Malcolm had taken the buggy away; heard nothing from defendant about an agreement with Malcolm t_l the present case turned up. This closed the evidence. Mr Hawkins addressed the court at some length, contending and citing authority to show that the action could not Re either on the allegation that defendant did not know he was entitled to the ownership of the buggy, or had been guilty of negligence with reference to it while in his possession. On other grounds he urged that defendant was not liablo for the claim, that he was. under tiie bona fide belief that the buggy belonged to him, and was entitled to a judgment in his favor or a nonsuit. Mr Hankins replied, contending that Malcolm had no right to transfer the buggy to Goodison, inasmuch ag a partner could not make over the assets of a firm to pay his private debts, and that the evidence was plainly to the e'lectthat the firm of Malcolm and Co. did not owe Goodison anything, and the other partners had never given their consent to the aUeged transfer of the buggy to the latter. He contended that plaintiffe were on every -point el

the evidence entitled to a verdict in their favor. After adjournment fsr luncheon, His Worship held that the property of the buggy had not passed to defendant, lie was satisfied that tho buggy had belonged to the firm, but — that Malcolm was not entitled to-make the transfer. He thought that defendant's ownership of the buggy was all along/fainted with doubt on his part. There were certain matters in the affair of which he had knowledge •when taking over the buggy, and should have disclosed, which he had not done, although ho did not attribute to him deceit with intent to defraud. At this juncture an argument ensued between both counsel and the Bench on a point of. law as to " authority to sell," after which His "Worship took timo to further consider - his verdict, and then gave judgment for plaintiff's for £40, together with costs, counsels' fee, and witnesses expenses. Mr Sandilaads here reported that in the case ofthe defendant, Laing, something had since been paid on account, and the Bench thereupon altered the term of imprisonment to 5 days. S. Knight >v J. Manson.— Claim £28 3s. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff, and Mr Hankins for defendant. Frances Knight, wife of plaintiff, deposed to losing a horse, and sending her son after it, who was 5 days looking for it. [Witness here gave full particulars of tho losses and expenses incurred in losing the horse.] Minnie Lovelock, a little girl 11 years of age, was examined and cross- *• examined as to her knowledge of the affair, as was also her brother Edwin. 9 years of age, both witnesses giving evidence very intelligently. Edward Knight, son of plaintiff, deposed to the time and trouble he was *at in looking for the horse, which was never recovered. Isaac Lovelock and Harry Hughes deposed to the value of tho horse. For the defence, Edward Smith deposed to the horse never having been on Manson's place at all ; told plaintiff of ' its whereabouts, and he said he didn't went it as the affair was now in his solicitor's hands. William Power and William Russell -were examined and cross-examined, and after both counsel had addressed court, His Worship summed up "and gave judgment for the defendant with costs, although he said he was not at all satisfied with tho ease, and . was convinced that one of the witnesses (named) for the defence had told deliberate falsehoods, calculated to do injury to the plaintiff. Mr Staite applied for a warrant for the arrest of Matthew Murray on a charge of perjury, alleging that he had good reason to believe the defendant had absconded to Australia. The R.M. said he should require some evidence under the " Fugitive Offenders' Act" in chambers before issuing a warrant to be executed in another colony, which being given he would grant the warrant. The court then adjourned.