RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Grey River Argus, Volume VII, Issue 498, 25 March 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tdbsday, March 23. (Before W. H. Revell, Esq., KM.) Drttnk and Disorderly. — James Robertson was charged with having been drunk at Rutherglen on the 21st inst., and with committing an indecent exposure. He was tined'Ll 10s., or forty-eight hours' imprisonment, on both charges. — Sarah Lynch and Louisa Getting were charged with lighting in' the street. Getting did not appear, being out on bail. Lynch was fined 10s., and Gettings' bail-bond' was ordered to be forfeited. There was a further charge of using obscene language against Louisa Getting, but as she did not appear, a warrant was ordered to be issued for her apprehension. — dames Lehney, for being drunk and incapable, was fined 55. , or twenty-four hours' imprisonment ; John Phillips, LI, or forty-eight hours' imprisonment, for being drunk and disorderly ; and William Wiggins, LI, or forty-eight hours' imprisonment, for beiug drunk and incapable. CIVIL CASES. G. Bannonv. Card Bros. — Not sufficient service of summons. Case dismissed. Samuel Loftquest v. Dart.— This was a claim against the Nelson Provincial Government for Ll2 10s. for extra work done on a contract for removing the Police Camp andlock-upfromTwelve-miletoCamptown, Red Jack's. Mr Guinness appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Perkins for the defendant. A tender of L 2 was made, but refused. The plaintiff stated that he entered into a contract with the defendant on behalf of the Nelson Provincial Government, to remove the- Court-house and lock-up from the Twelve-mile to Camptown, Red Jack's. He carried 'out the contract to the satisfaction of Mr Dent. After signing the contract, he was asked to provide sixty extra long piles, for which he would be paid, and for which he had charged L 5. Mr Dent said he would not have any white pine piles, they must all be black pine, and the old piles were not removed from the Twelve-mile. He provided labor to make a new plate for the building, for which he charged 55., 15s. for providing a chimney frame, ss. for mending the floors and labor in fixing the door-locks, LI for making four plates for lock-up, 15s. for labor in flooring the lockup, LI 10s. for making a new chimney, and L 3 for expanses incurred through detention of men and boat at the Twelvemile, through the Court sitting when he should have been working. — In cross-ex-amination, he said he had signed a receipt for the completion of the whole of the work to the satisfaction of Mr Dent. — The defence was, that the claim was an unjust one, and that was the only reason why it was resisted by the Government — because the items charged were not extras. The only extra items were the four plates, LI ; and the alterations*™ the lock-up, LI ; an offer of payment of which had been made to the plaintiff before the action was brought. Mr Dent went over the items claimed for. No claim had ever been made to him for extras, except the items for which he had allowed the L 2. On the day when the plaiutiff said he was detained, he saw him carting away the lockup. — J. R. Dutton, Warden of the Grey district, recollected the overseer mentioning a claim for extras. After receiving reports from the- overseer and the District Engineer, the plaintiff came, and he told him that although the work had been done iv a very unsatisfactory manner, and he had been over his time considerably, the penalty would not. be enforced. The plaintiff was paid, and he then said he had a claim for extras. He was told that it would not be recognised, all he had heard of it was a sum of L 2, which he thought had been abandoned in consequence of the unsatisfactory manner in which the work had been done. Afterwards, he saw the plaintiff and Mr Dent together, heard their statements, and offered the plaintiff L 2 in full. He declined, but offered to take L 3, which was refused. The plaintiff suffered no detention at the Twelve-mile. — J. H. Lowe, District Engineer, had gone over the work, and had seen the claim for extras, which he did not consider fair or reasonable. The Magistrate gave, judgment for L 4 for the extras, and allowed nothing for the alleged detention. Carroll v. Millar. — This was a claim of L 7 for driving a horse *on tw> trips to the Ahaura. Judgment was given for the amount claimed, and costs. Brookman v. Fyfe. — No appearance of the plaintiff ; case dismissed. THE LATE FORESTERS* BALL. Harry Hope v. Edwin Ashton. — This was a claim for the detention of a double ticket of the value of 255, for the ball and supper lately given by the Foresters' Court, which the plaintiff and his wife were prevented from attending, and L2O damages for expenses incurred thereby. The plaintiff stated that he was a boat- j man, and resided at Cobden: On Thursday, the 11th February, he called on the defendant for a double ticket for the Foresters' Anniversary "Ball. He got the ticket, and paid for it. On the next day j plaintiff -called oh him and asked for the

ticket to see it. He took it? away with him on condition that he would return it on Saturday evening. On that afternoon I called on the plaintiff, who said he could not find the ticket, that it had been mislaid. Afterwards he said he would give me a ticket to admit myself, but my wife's name would have to be scratched off. My wife went*to some expense to prepare for the b,all. We*presented ourselves at the door of the ball-room and asked a double ticket. My wife was refused admission. They offered me a single ticket for myself. Cross-examined: I am a Forester, and Mr Ashtqn is another. When he gave me. the ticket he did not tell me th"c lady's name would have ibo be approved of by a Committee. He never told me so. When he called upon me he sa\d something about the ticket going to a C.ommittae. I did not know that all the ladies names were to bo submitted to the. Committee. for approval. All he said was that he had to show that he had issued me that ticket. I was at the defendant's hotel on the Saturday evening, where the Committee sat. Ashton told me that he could only give me the ticket back by scratching my wife's name out. The L2O damages were incurred by my wife in preparing for the ball. Thomas Kitchingham said he was with the plaintiff when the double ticket was first given to the plaintiff, afterwards when defendant stated that the ticket was lost, and when he said that he would return it if he allowed his wife's name to be scratched off. No mention was made of repayment of the difference of money between the price of a double or single ticket. He w.a at the door of the room when the defendant and his wile were refused admission, because they had no ticket. Cross-ex-amined : There was a previous ticket taken out for the admission of Mrs Hope by me, at Mr Hope's request. Plaintiff knew of his wife being refused on the first ticket. This matter has been referred to a Court of Foresters. I was present with Hope at Ashton's Hotel when he said the ticket was lost. I did not know what the Committee wa3 debating about. Phoebe Hope said : I remember my husband bringing home a ticket to admit himself and I to the Foresters' Ball, to be held at Gilmer's hall. In consequence of that I spent Ll4 lßs 9d for millinery, and 19s for dressmaking. I went to the ball,, but was refused admission. Samuel Murdoch said he remembered being shown the double ticket, to admit Mr and Mrs Hope to the Forester's Ball and Supper. This was the plaintiffs case ; and Mr Perkins moved for a nonsuit, under section 29 of the Friendly Societies' Act, which set forth that every dispute between members and societies established under this Act shall be decided in the manner laid down by the rules of such society, and in all such decisions there shall be no appeal. Mr Guinness contended that the rules of the Society had not yet been proved, and there was nothing to show that this Society was established " under this Act." The Magistrate : Proceed with the proof. Mr A. R. Guinness was called to prove the Revising Barrister's signature to the laws of the Society. He refused to give evidence until his expenses were paid, and stepped out of the box. The Magistrate : You must conduct yourself properly here. Go into the box. This is most unseemly altogether. Mr Perkins again called Mr Guinness, and he again applied for his expenses. Mr Perkins : They will abide the event of the action. Mr Guinness, examined : I cannot say lam solicitor to the Foresters' Court in this town. I assisted a Committee to prepare these rules, and I either took them or sent them to Hokitika to be revised. I have every reason to believe that the signature is that of the Revising Barrister, Mr Harvey. He sent the rules to Wellington to be registered under the Act. I believe the printed copies generally used by the members are true copies of these rules. I now claim the privilege of cross-examining myself. These rules provide for the manner in which disputes between members shall be decided. A certain dispute having arisen between Mr Hope and some other members, the Society declined to have anything to do with it, as* this would not be a dispute between a member and the Society, but was simply, in reference to a ball with which the Society had nothing to do. I am a member of the Society. This matter has since been refsred to the District Court meeting in Nelson, and a- letter has heen received by Mr Hope suggesting that the matter should be brought before a court of law, which has been done. Edwin Ashton : 1* know the plaintiff. He applied to me for a double ticket, for a j)all held under the auspices of the Society. I was one 6f the Committee appointed by the Society to cany it out. Hope told me first that his wife had been blackballed when she was going to the ball with Kitchinghamj and he asked for a double ticket for himself and his wife. Being a member of the Order, I was in duty bound to give him the ticket.. I then learned that the names of all ladies should be submitted to the Committee, and I went to Cobden to get the ticket back solely for the purpose of having the name submitted to the Committee. He came over on Saturday evening to abide the result, and was then informed that his wife had again been blackballed. I offered him the money back in the Foresters' Court, after the ball. The matter was not entertained here, because it was not brought before them in a proper manner. Cross-examined : The ball - was in connection with the Society. The Committee could not refuse a Forester admission, but they could refuse Foresters' wives. When I gave Hope the ticket I told him I would try and get his wife's name passed through the Committee. I thought ; this was likely when she went with her husband. ... Robert Shaw : I recollect the ball and was oue of the Ball Committee. Mrs Hope's name was submitted and refused. I produce the minutes of the Committee, and find that oh the 10th certain ladies' names were submitted and rejected. That was applied for by Kitchingham. Another ticket was balloted for on the 13th, applied for by Mrs Hope's husband, and again rejected. Hope would have been admitted himself.. Counsel having addressed the Bench on both sides, The Magistrate said that from all the evidence before him, from the manner in which the ball was conducted, and the rules under which it was brought, Mr Ashton was quite justified in withholding the ticket. The case would therefore be dismissed with costs.