MAGISTRATES COURTS.

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 680, 24 August 1876, Page 2

MAGISTRATES COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Wednesday, August 23. (Before G. L, Mellish, Esq, R.M.) Civil Cases. —Joyce v New Zealand Shipping Co, claim for £]o~> damages. In this case, partly heard last week, the plaintiff sued the Shipping Go for damages through breach of contract, in not com pleting a Dale of leasehold property a 1; Lyttelton. It appeared that defendants were the creditors of Mr J. Carder, and had obtained from him a deposit of his lease, unaccompanied by any memorandum. The property was afterwards put up for sale by auction at Messrs B. Walton and Go’s sale rooms, and was purchased by plaintiff’s

agent. On examining the title it was found that Carder was insolvent, and that Mr Walton had been appointed provisional trustee of the estate, and in that position claimed the purchase money, and refused to join in the assignment. A long correspondence on the matter took place between the plaintiff and the Shipping Co, and the former failing to obtain satisfaction commenced these proceedings. Dr Foster, who appeared for the plaintiff, examined Mr Walton, a clerk to the company, and other witnesses. Mr Harper, for defendants, took numerous technical objections, with a view of proving that there had been no contract to which the company were a party, and that the case was merely one of disputed title. After lengthened arguments by counsel Mr Harper’s objections were overruled by the Magistrate, and the case was adjourned at the request of defendant’s counsel to allow of him producing witnesses. When the case was called on yesterday Mr Harper stated that he had decided to abandon the technical objections previously raised by him, and should confine himself to the question of damage sustained by plaintiff. Dr Foster called the plaintiff and Messrs Wilcox and Wooledge, who proved that the property would let at from £ls to £l6 a year, which capitalised for the term, brought the value up to £l5O. Mr Harper contended that the plaintiff could not recover damages for los* of bargain, and could only obtain a return of his deposit with interest, together with any expenses he might have been actually put to, and cited Flureau v Thornhill, 2 B.L, 1078; Walker v Moore, 10 B. & 0, 416, and other cases in support of his contention. Dr Foster pointed out that the present case did not come within the exceptions of the authorities cited by Mr Harper, inasmuch as the defendants had chosen to sell without having any title; but that it was governed by the rule of common law, and his client was entitled to recover whatever loss he had sustained, [Hopkins v Grazebrook, 6 B. & G, 31. J There could not be a clearer measure of loss than the difference between the actual value, and the price he had bud to give, upon which the evidence was all one way. His Worship held with Dr Foster as to the rule of damages, but considered that as the sale had been made by public auction, the price obtained must be taken to be the true test of the value of the property, notwithstanding the evidence given. Defendants would have to repay plaintiff his deposit with interest, and also all legal expenses he had been put to. Thursday, August 23. (Before G. L. Hellish, Esq, R.M.) Drunk and Breaking Glass. Robert Tindall, arrested for being drunk and breaking a pane of glass at Neilson’s boarding house, Tuam street, was lined 10s and 12s 6d value of glass. Illegally on Premises.— Hugh Montgomery, charged with being found illegally in the stable of Charles Haggle, was sentenced to forty-eight hours imprisonment with hard labor. Drunk and Disorderly.— John Parker, who had been arrested on this charge and was still suffering from the effects of drink, was remanded for eight days. Larceny. —Edward Hastie was brought up on remand for this offence. Two other charges of stealing a pair of drawers and a handkerchiefwere also preferred against him. The drawers and handkerchief had been found by Sergeant Pratt when searching accused’s box, and he told him he had purchased them from Mr Crothers. clothier, in Christchurch. Mr Strange, clothier, High street, called, stated that Sergeant Hughes purchased two pairs of drawers at his shop about October last. They were of a light texture, large size, of an uncommon kind, and marked “ Patent merino Indian gauze.” He sent them to the depot by his shop boy, and about a month ago Sergeant Hughes complained to him of his not having received them. The pair produced was the same as sent to the depot for Hughes, and had a similar trade mark on them. By accused —lt would be possible to purchase similar drawers in Christchurch. It was shown by a witness that a parcel containing similar articles to the pair in Court had been delivered at the police- depot library. Sergeant Hughes identified the article in Court ns similar in every way to those he had purchased. Mr Crothers, who had been carrying on business as a clothier in Christchurch in October last, stated he could not say whether he had or had not similar drawers to those produced. The charge of stealing the handkerchief was then heard. When found by Sergeant Pratt the name of George Trimble was seen in one corner of the handkerchief, and accused said he could not say how it got into his box unless the laundress had made a mistake in putting it into his bundle. The handkerchief was identified by Trimble, and also by the laundress, who had placed the handkerchief in Trimble’s bundle, and left it in the day rooms. In reply to the Bench, accused said he did not know the handkerchief was in his box until it was found there by Sergeant Pratt. The three charges brought against him were most unjust. He had no intention of stealing the studs, as if he had he could easily have taken the three. He certainly acted wrong by not at once giving them up when he found them. The drawers he had purchased as he had stated. His Worship told accused that he believed him to be a petty pilferer of the worst description, as any man was who robbed his comrades ; and, besides, caused suspicion to rest upon a number of innocent persons. He would be sentenced to two months’ imprisonment on each charge, or six mouths in all. Embezzlement.— F. B. Maning was charged, on remand, with having embezzled £5 10s, belonging to the estate of Clement Wilson, of Lyttelton. Mr Thomas appeared for the accused. When arrested Maning said he had the money, and would like to square it, and afterwards said if he had some papers he could prove his innocence. L B. Nathan, trustee in the estate of Mr Clement Wilson, gave evidence of accused having been em ployed to collect debts due to the estate in the terms of the letter produced, in which accused offered to collect all debts, &c, for 7\ per cent, and to render accounts of monies collected weekly. Cross-examined— Witness said that accused w*s aul'hofised to retain a proportion of amounts collected, to enable him to issue summonses, until his percentage would place him id sufficient funds for that purpose, Did not know the date when accused rendered his last account to the co trustee of witness. The uncollected portion of the debts had been sold, but he believed that r.o accounts had been collected by his co-trustee since accused bad i ielt Lyttelton, Charles Ollivier deposed to i indebted to the estate of Clement i

Wilson to the amount of £4 10s. Receipt produced for that amount was paid to accused on 10th May last. George Adams gave evidence of having paid accused £1 on 12th May, on account of £6 which he owed Wilson’s estate. Had received the receipt produced at the time. James Henderson who had been appointed co-trustee with Mr Nathan, stated that accused was employed as collector of debts due to Wilson’s estate. He was supposed to hand in the monies collected to him (witness) at his office. Neither of the amounts shown in the receipts produced had been paid to him. Accused had furnished a statement of monies collected up to 11th May, but had made no mention in it of having received £4 10s from Ollivier. Though accused paid monies into the office in his (witness’) absence, they were all supposed to be paid to him, and the statements were made up as having been paid to him. Accused wrote a letter from Timaru, asking that any errors in the accounts might be pointed out by letter, and he would endeavour to rectify them. Witness wrote accused that he could not point them out by letter, but would do so personally if accused would come to his office. In cross-examina-tion by Mr Thomas—Witness said he had been informed that the weekly accounts (produced j tallied with the summary in Court. An amount was shown in each return as having been kept back for expenses, but this amount was left unaccounted for. The trustees had sold the debts in the estate, but had given no order to the purchaser to withdraw the amounts paid into Court, As a business man he could not say whether in selling the debts sued for he also sold the expence at which accused had been put to in sueing debtors to the estate. Had replied to accused at Timaru, but had received no answer. Could not say whether he received upwards of £3O on the day the statement dated llth May was rendered. Had never informed accused of the items he was supposed to be incorrect in. Had received a letter from accused saying he was going to Timaru, and would call on him when he returned, but at this time witness had learnt that accused had absconded. Did not know of his own knowledge that accused had done so. Was not aware tbac he (accused) was in regular employment as schoolmaster at Wainui. After Mr Thomas had addressed the Bench at length, his Worship said he was prepared to give accused the benefit of the doubt in the case, but he had exhibited very great carelessness in his accounts, and had ample opportunity to come to Christchurch and rectify the errors in the accounts with the co trustees. Accused would be discharged. The result of the case was received with applause. Transfer op License.— The transfer of the Provincial Larder, wine and beer license, was granted from Alfred Ringwood to Honora Agnes Quill.

Horses and Cattle at Large. —For permitting horses and cattle to wander at large in public thoroughfares, the following persons were each fined 5s : —Alex Agnew, Wm Hall, Wm Herbert, Thos Aldridge, and James Chambers. Henry Knowles, against whom there were two informations, was fined 10s.

Miscellaneous. —A charge against James Moon , summoned for being at a distance fi om his horse and cart, so as not to have them u ider sufficient control, was adjourned for a week, Nicholas Smith, charged with tethering a horse in Park terrace, was fined 10s. Henry Harry, summoned for driving two horses without sufficient reins, was fined 10s. Unregistered Dogs.— For being the owner of unregistered dogs, John Garland and James Lynn were each fined 20s. Messrs J. and R. H. Campbell were summoned for a similar offence, Evidence was given that the dog in question had been on Messrs Campbell’s premises for nine months, and had bitten a man. Mr J. Campbell said he was not the owner of the dog, and knew nothing of its being there. When told that it was in the hay loft and had snapped at a man, he ordered it to be taken away, and he had not seen it since. All the dogs owned by him were registered. He hardly thought he ought to be held responsible for all the dogs that were brought on to his premises. His Worship said certainly not; but it had been shown that this dog had been kept on the premises for the last nine monihs. Fined 20s, Breach op Public House Ordinance. —R. P. Hill was charged with keeping open and selling drink in his licensed house after hours on the Bth July. Mr Thomas appeared for defendant. It was shown that defendant had that night sat up with a friend waiting for two of his boarders. The latter had had a drink served him before eleven o’clock, but not afterwards, and the two latter, with defendant himself, had each a half pint of beer after they returned. In reply to the Bench, Inspector Buckley, said defendant’s house was exceedingly well conducted, and his Worship dismissed the case. Removing Gates on Ferry Road.— George Faulkner, George Brigg, Charles Powell, and Robert Dixon, were charged with destroying a fence on the night of the 6th August, by removing a gate from the premises of Mr W. E Stamford. Mr Thomas appeared for defendants, and handed in a medical certificate on account of Dixon. Mounted Constable Cartman stated that on the 6t,h inst he went down the Ferry road to make enquiries, and saw Brigg, who admitted that he was connected .in removing the gates on the previous night, and that Powell was with him, but he would give no further information. Mr Stamford stated that he missed the gate on the morning of the 6th inst, and from what he heard from his daughter, he went to Powell, who admitted having been with the crowd who removed the gates that night. Witness told him that if he would bring the gate back nothing more would bo said about it. Some thirteen gates had been removed that night. Witness had been compelled to get a new gate and post at the cost of about a pound. Jane Stamford stated that on that night she heard Brigg and Powell, who were standing at the corner of the house, call out to some person not to touch the gate, and they then went away. This was before the gate was removed. E, Round remembered the night of the sth, and had two gates taken away that night. Was present when Mr Stamford spoke to Powell next morning, and told him that his wife and daughter could swear that he was with those who took away bis gate. Powell denied having ever touched the gate, but admitted that he saw some person lift the gate off the hinges. Powell also strongly denied' that he had anything to do wit|i removing his (witness’s) gates. His Worship said there was nothing in the evidence to. - ’connect Faulkner and Dixon with the offence, and the charge against them would

» • be dismissed, Mr Thomas addressed the Bench for Brigg and Powell, and contended they could not be held to be responsible for persons in whose company they might have been, but seeing something going on which they did not approve, they protested and went away. His Worship said that Brigg and Powell were certainly shown to have been connected with removing the gate. They would each be fined 20s with cost of damage and witnesses’ expenses. ASSAULT.— F. Piper was charged with having assaulted 0. J. Carter. Complainant had been in defendant’s employ, and some dispute having arisen he struck camplainant, but afterwards expressed hia regret at having done so. His Worship imposed a fine of 20s. Tresspassing in Pursuit op Game.— Henry Cox, for trespassing on Templar Island on the sth August, with a dog and gun, was fined 20s, and 9s costs, LYTTELTOJSf. Thursday, August 24. (Before W. Donald, Esq., R.M.) Larceny from a Dwelling.— Solomon Boos was brought up, charged with having stolen a work-box and other articles from a dwelling-house in Christchurch. The prisoner, who had been arrested by Sergeantmajor O’Grady, was remanded to Christchurch. Civil Cases. —Sinclair v Cannall; claim £24 8a ; balance due on one third purchase money for slip in Dampier’a Bay ; Mr Nalder for plaintiff, Mr G. Harper for defendant ; judgment for plaintiff for £23 12a and costs £2, solicitor’s fee £3 3s. Edgar v Newton ; claim, £3 13s for rent due; judgment for amount claimed ; defendant ordered to give up possession by August 31st. Findlay v Davis ; claim, £1 15s 6d ; judgment for amount claimed, with costs. Lowe v Peter Jiervanich ; claim, £2 14s: judgment by confession ; costs 6s. McDonald v Gordon ; claim, £3 10a 7d ; judgment by default, with costs. Kerr v Hempstalk ; claim, £3 ; case adjourned for one week.