RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Grey River Argus, Volume VII, Issue 515, 6 May 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, May 4. (Before W. H. Revell, Esq., R.M., and W. H. Harrison, Esq., J.P.) Drunkenness.— Geprge Hughes, forhaving been drunk and incapable, was fined ss, or 24 hours' imprisonment. Strayep Horses,— Joseph .Rilgour was charged with permitting four horses to wander at large within the Borough. He. did not appear. Mr Revell said as this was the first case of the kind under the Municipal Corporations Act, the Bench was not disposed to inflict a heavy tine, still, as the defendant by refusing to appear had set the Court at defiance, he would be fined L 2 and coats.— White, Davison, and Barnhill, of Paroa, were charged with a similar offence, in pei> mitting one horse to stray, and fined 5s and costs. . , Neighbors' Quarrels.— Margaretßurdon v. Sarah Featherstone.— A charge of using abusive and threatening language. The complainant handed to the Bench in writing the language complained of. Geo. Burdon proved that . the language had been made" use of by the defendant. Constable Plannagan proved thes% parties bore a very bad character. The defence was that Ihe language was used by the complainant ; and, after hearing evidence, Mr Revell said the' Court was of opinion that the language sworn to was made use of by the defendant, but from the character which both parties bore, it was advisable to bind them both over to; keep the peace for six months, themselves, in LlO each, and two sureties of L 5 each, the defendant to pay the costs. Charge against. a Constable.— The. adjourned charge against Sergeant John M'Minn for receiving gratuities w,ajs proceeded with. Mr Warden Keogh said he. was now in charge of the Greejwtone district. In February last he wsßtn charge, of the Rutherglen district and defendant, was the sergeant in charge. The defendant also acted as Warden's clerk. He. never gave the defendant authority toj make an extra charge for filling up forms, of application to the Warden's Court, or. for filling up summonses. It was not customary for a charge to be made for fillingup these forms. Cross-examined by MrPerkins : I mean within office hours. He was not compelled to do it outside of* office- hours. I remember, in conyersa-. tion, the defendant mentioned something about filling in * these forms after office' hours and making a charge, but I cannot remember the exact words. I remember, cautioning him against taking any money for doing it. I understood it to be a part of his duty to fill up oue of each set o£ application forms, and allow the parties to copy the others. lam certain I nevert told him to do as he pleased. Inspector Brohara : When the defendant was sent to Rutherglen he was instructed to perform the duties of Warden's clerk and bailiff, in addition' to his ordinary duties as police : sergeant. On taking the oath he was, supposed to, know the contents of the* police manual. Cross-examined : I cannot say whether these instructions were writ-, ten or verbal, but I am positive I- gave; them. It is within the scope of his duty as a constable to act as Warden's clerk. I did not give him authority to take gratui--•fcioo-for filling •up-fopma. ; .. Mr Perkins obi jected to the police regulations null and void, as they were made in" 1862 by the Superintendent of Canterbury, and; the Governor had no authority to delegate his power in that matter until 186§. The Magistrate overruled the objection, as the power was granted to the Superintendent hy the Empowering Ordinance pf 1864. Mr Perkins then took objection to the word "gratuity." The defendant could, not be said to have taken a gratuity, ■which was moneypaid fornothing, but had earned it in the shape of doing work for* miners who could not do it themselves after his regular office hours. Thej Magistrate said it appeared that the reason' why the defendant was sent as officer in charge of the district was that he also performed the duties of the Warden's office.. With regard to the special charge, it ap* peared from the evidence that the de-r fendant had made a charge of 2s for filling up application forms, but the prin-* cipal charge was receiving Is for filling up a summons. That was a breach of Uie regulations. He would be convicted of the charge of receiving gratuities, which, was a breach of the confidence which had been placed in him, when he was entrusted with the issuing of documents to the miners, in order to save them the trouble of coming into Greymouth. The» fine would be LI and costs. - - CIVIL OASES. Judgments confessed and by default :-=- Skoglund and PurceH v. Hayden aad Rankin, L 26 16s and costs ; T. Joyce V, Gledhill, L2O and costs ; J. Jones v. A. Scott, L 25 and costs; W. King v. R, Black, L 27 and costs ; Magoffin V. GleoV hill, L2B 8s 6d and costs; Coates v. Gledhill, amount claimed arid cost ; Jas. Johnston v. R. Kilgour, amount claimed and costs ; Taylor v. Huddleston, L 49 9s 6d and costs; Strike and Son v. D. M'Gahey/Llol7s and costs; Trustee in estate of A. M'Neil r. D. M'Gahey, L 2) 16s and costs. Forsylh and Masters v. Webb and Murdoch, and same v. A. Scott.— No. return of summons. E. Anchor v. Jackson and Turner.-^ I Claim of L 6, the price of a sail, and alterations. The defence was that the sail, after having been returned for alterations, had never reached the defendant!. It was proved that the sail had beat ordered, altered, and given to the carrier mentioned by the defendants. Judgment for the amount claimed and costs. j R> S. Allan v. A. Wale.— Claim of L 3 10s, for 701bs. of coffee sold and delivered to the defendant's order. The defence 1 was that the coffee received was not according to sample and had been returned. Judgment for amount claimed and costs. . lake brunner > water race company (limited). (Before W. H. Revell, Esq.,R.M.; A. Scott, Official Liquidator of Lake Brunner Water Race Co. (Limited) \. Edmund Wickes.— This was an action to recover a call of L 2 per share on four shares held by the defendant, in the above-named company, now being wound up by order of the Court. Mr Newton appeared for Mr Scott, and Mr Perkins for the defendant. The defence was that the four shares held, by the defendant were promoter's paid-up shares received by him in consideration of LIO paid towards the expenses of the preliminary . survey. Mr Scott pr.oved his appointment as*

official 'liquidator, as successor to Mr i Bloxham, and the original memorandum ' .of association showing that the defendant , held four shares in the company. There were now debts of the company amounting to over LIOO and no assets, and a call had to be made on the shareholders. Harry I^enrick, Clerk to the Bench, produced the Gazette notice, the certificate of registration, and several other documents connected with the company. The defendant's name appeared on these documents aa representing foivr shares in the company. The defendant was called as a witness for the plaintiff, and said — To the best of his knowledge he did not hold shares in the company. He was promised four paid-up shares in consideration that he paid LlO to assist the preliminary survey, And its being proved practicable to carry out the object for which the company was started. He had never received any scrip. He saw the notice in the Grey River Arg us, and four shares put against his name. He considered that statement quite correct, as he was entitled to the shares for the money he had paid. He then applied for his. scrip several times, but did not receive it. Did not pay any money on account of those shares ; but paid it for preliminary expenses, previous to the company being registered. The arrangement was that those who paid for the preliminary survey, and the scheme turned out to be practicable, were to receive two paid-up L 5 shares for every L 5 subscribed. He paid LlO, and was entitled to receive four paid-up shares, which he had not received. In a letter he wrote to the "plaintiff he stated that he had received four paid-up shares. That was a mistake ;it ought to have been that he was to receive the shares. To his knowledge he was not appointed a director in the company ; but he saw his name afterwards in the paper as a director, and did not contradict it. .He was present at a meeting, and heard the reports of the Manager and Surveyor read, which recommended the company to be formed at once, shares to be issued to the public, and the worss commenced. If the scheme was not successful he was to lose his money ; but if successful he was to receive the paid-up shares. Cross-examined by Mr Perkins : The prospectus produced was that of the company. It stated that the promoters reserved 122 shares in payment of expenses which they ha,d incurred in the preliminary purvey, Mi? Perkins moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that no evidence had been produced to show that the defendant was a shareholder in the company, or that there was anything remaining, unpaid on the shares which he held. Mr Newton replied that it had been proved the defendant held four shares, upon which he had paid only L 1 0; the value of the shares was L 5 each, and that he was liable for an additional LlO. The arrangement the defendant made might be binding as between himself and the company, but it was not binding as between himself and third parties with whom the company contracted debts. . The Magistrate over-ruled the nonsuit point. W. H. Harrison was called, and stated that -he recollected the formation of the pompany, and acted as hon. sec. prior to jts being registered. The prospectus, which appeared in the Grey River Argus, mentioned that 122 preference shares were to be reserved in consideration of money advanced by the promoters to prove the possibility of bringing water into the Arnold district. He collected that money. Was not aware of there being any special terms, mentioned, but there was a general understanding tbat the money contributed by the subscribers would go towards the payment of shares, in the event of the possibility of carrying out the undertaking being proved. After the report of the surveyor had been received, the directors elected allotted preferential shares to the original contributors. They received two L 5 shares for every L 5 paid up. The defendant paid him LlO, and was entitled to receive four shares. He wished to state that after the company was formed he handed over the accounts and balance of money on hand, and resigned his position. Mr James Payne was then appointed secretary. Edmund Wickes was recalled, and repeated the statement previously made with regard to the shares he expected to receive in consideration of his contribution of LIQ towards the survey expenses. Counsel on both sides having addressed the Bench, the Magistrate reserved his decision until the following day. Wednesday, May 5. (Before W. H t Kevell, Esq., R,M.) Judgment. — His Worship gave judgment in the civil case against Edmund Wickes, heard on the previous day. He said : In this case it appeared there was a certain amount of money subscribed by persons interested in the starting of the Lake Brunner Water Race Company, on the understanding that if the Company was successfully floated they were to re--ceive preferential shares. The Company was floated, and the directors reserved to themselves 122 paid-up shares for the work they had done in establishing the Company. Haying done so, they set forth to the public the name and title of the Company as registered, showing who the shareholders in the Company were. Those shares were set forth as an inducement for other persons to take up shares, bo as to float the Company and enable the Manager to carry on the works and enter into contrasts. The. public had no means of knowing that these were preference shares, and it would upset the whole meaning of the Act if such a thing was to be allowed as preference shares being set down as the snares of the Company and set forth to the public. The preference shares were held by the public, but the shares for which their names were regisr tered were bom, fide shares on which they .were liable to pay the calls. Judgment for the plaintiff, L 8 and costs. By agreement this judgment was also recorded in a similar case against Joseph Kilgour. .Drunkenness.— John Kirkdale, for being drunk and disorderly, was fined LI or 48 hours' imprisonment. Charge of Sly-grog Selling. — Peter White was charged, on remand, with keeping and exposing for sale certain spirituous liquors in his store on the South Beach on the 27th April. Constable Moeller stated that on that day he called at the store, and saw a gin bottle on the counter and two glasses. A number of bottles were on a box behind the counter, , all of which were empty except one, which was filled with gin. A decanter was standing jn the store, but.it was empty. Cross-

examined by Mr Perkins : In the bottle on the counter there was only a nobbier, and all the other spirits he saw in the place was one other bottle of gin. It was admitted that there was no license for the store. The defence was that no liquor was kept for sale in the house. It was simply kept to treat customers when they settled up their store-bills. J. 0. Giles said he knew the defendant's store. About five weeks ago he and another man pulled up at the defendant's store and asked two diggers who were passing to have a drink. He offered Mrs White 4s in payment, but she refused, saying that she did not take money for drink. He tried to give the money to the child, but she would not allow him. Neil Denison, a miner, had been in the habit of dealing at the defendant's store, and had often called for drink, but never paid for them. Never saw any grog sold in the defendant's place. No extra charge was made for provisions in consequence. George Martin gave similar evidence. Other two witnesses were called, but did not appear. The Magistrate said the evidence for the defence went to show that no money was taken for the drink, but it was a very objectionable practice to keep liquor in the store. The case would be dismissed.