RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Grey River Argus, Volume IX, Issue 688, 16 June 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Tuesday, Jpne 14. (Before W. H. ReveU, Esq., R.M.) Police y. James Jones. — Allowing a stove-pipe to catch fire. Charge admitted. Fined L 2, and costs. - Police v. George Martin.— -Defendant was. charged ,jwith . aUowipg ..disorderly characters to assemble in his house on the ' 7th June, on theoccasion of a ball being given by him. — Constable Keating deposed to. seein£aomejaafcoriou& prostitutes there.Heard no noise. The house was clewed at three Vclock, to which honr the permissionrextended.^—Coustnble FJannaga'n corroborated tbe last witness' evidence —Mr Perkins addressed the Bench for the defendant, who was fined LI, and costs.crra cases. . , • > \ James Davis v. Pain and Co.— ln thi| case judgment was reserved. It was now given; for the ; plaintiff, for the amount claimed, and costs. - The following cases were adjourned until Thursday :— Kerr, Keogh, and Co., v. Bishop ; Ogden v. Harrison ; De Costa v. Taylor ; J; Jones v. Aon Hogan; ' Judgments by default.— White y. 3fulvihead, LI 3 15s 6d ; Watsoii and Wicked v. West, L 7. •■■•'•■■■■■■ -•--■ -'•■-•'•■>•■. ■ Tovey v. De Pearson.— A fratfd sdbmons. The defendant was residing at No Town, and the summons was enlarged to be heard at Camptown. Strike and Blackmorie' y, !M/Carihy:---' Mr Perkins appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Guinness for the defendant. This was a claim of LlO damages, for taking, possession of a cask, and, converting it toliijf own use. The summons also asked tCaf the cask should ; be returned. The parties are rival brewers in town, and the action was brought more* for the; purpose otasserting the plaintiffs' right to the cask in question, and to secure that their property should not be interfered with again. Mr Strike stated that his firm had a number of hhds, branded and numbered] and they had never sold one. The one num-, bered 24 he saw opposite Mrs Burctiell's hotel* with McCarthy's brand freshppC" on, underneath theirs. He spoke to M^ McCarthy about itj^and he 'promised to send it down to their brewery. He never returned it; The hhd in question was last"' sent from the brewery to Gilmer's, and they did not hear of it again until it was seen opposite Mrs Burchell's. .Casks bearing McCarthy's brand had come into their . possession! by purchase, because M^Cartlra sold his' to parties, who resold them.*-/ J. P. Taylor, in the employ of plaintiffs, remembered the cask, No. 24, being sent to Gilmer's about five .months ago. He last saw it opposite Burchell's, and pointed » it but to defendant's man', and cautioned him not to touch it. ; He. admitted that it ttc» plaintiffs'. A few days afterwards, he sair.the.cask at defendant's; brewefy/" and he promised to send it down next day; to plaintiffs 1 brewery,, but. did not. Defendant afterwards saiirhV kept it in place of one of his which plaintiffs got from Mr Keown^ at the Australasian'; ' They r never gotthepnereferredto. He remembered one cask- belonging to M'Carthy being brought to their place ? but it was sent to him by his drayman." He ; was quite 'surij iihpyl never branded any casks about which the/wereia doubt. : Mr Strike was recalled, and said that on Tuesday last he met M'Carthy, who promised unconditionally, to send it down to their brewery. Jaufes Parsons, driver for defendant, remembered a cask in the yard, bearing both plaintiffs' and defendant's brands. He did not know how it came there, or which* was the latest brand put on.' It was. si§f in the defendant's yard. The . stated that when he was told' about the cask he looked at it, and found that it bore both brands. He then told tbe driver to leave it there, and not use it. He had since offered to return this cask if plaintiffs returned one of his they had in their p<»session. They had kept one of his for eighteen months ; and he had gone dowrf x to their place and taken away casks witir his brand on them. The disputed cask had three brands on it, and even now he could not tell who it belonged,, to. He denied having ever solrf'nig' casks, but he had, exchanged some for Nelson hhds. A. -S. George remembered . being told by the defendant to take this • cask from the front' of Burchell'B. ' It was nearly covered with, brands, but McCarthy's appeared to be the nearest. Robert Keown, of the Australasian Hotel, recollected about twelve months ago sending in four hhds, three belonging to Strikfei and one to M'Carthy. He believed they!, all went to Strike's; M*Carty afterwards said he would hold him responsible for it, when he told him that it was only 'feu?' he should take the next one that belonged to Strike. M'CartKy's cask was not branded. James Bendwick remembered about fifteen months: ago talringL:., three empty casks and <me half f nil JfiromjP Keown to Strike's. Keown told him a week afterwards that he should have left one of them at McCarthy's;; Michael ' Dwyer remembered in February some casks coming from the steps opposite Gilmer's. He took them to Strike's.: They had McCarthy's tickets on them, which ■'^ ; Taylor took off, and branded them with Strike aud Blackraore's brand. There were a good ,nia»y of McCarthy's casks \ plaintiffs' place at that time; Cross-ex& ' mined : He did not remember being threatened with discharge if .he brought any other person's casks, or being ordered iS to take back three casks to M'Caffthy'a ! after , six o'clock , as a punishment for bringing them. One hhd, with McCarthy's brand burnt in was sent, tav West the * cooper's. James West, cooper, did mfc.? recollect ■ ever : getting any casks - (fronl > " Strike's with any bra.nd but their own. He did not recollect telling McCarthy that he had turned down five of bis casks and returned them to Strike.; . He had ptifc new tops on many casks for Strike, but '• never saw. M'Carthy's brand on, any, of them> ; Counsel having addressed thej Bench, the Magistrate, said he had no doubt the cask was the proY>eHiy of Strike .and Blackmore, who had adopted a, very Simple plan of marking their casks and keeping a registry, of where, they : were isent to. The defence was no defence whatever to th,e option.-. JEt was >in< reality * that tecause a man took your propertf / you could take his in return. Torndmit that would be setting all law and justice aside. It was the defendant's place to return the cask when it was demanded, of him, and not for the plaintiffs td send for it. Defendant would have to return the cask, pay, 10s damages, and the costs.: \ „- Watson tod Wickes v. G. F/ MaxwelL % — This was a claim for L29s 2d for goods, * supplied to Martin Codyre , on defen- ' dant's account. It was admitted that the goods wcro received and iis^d, and' Ac ,

defence was that the amount had been paid to Codyre, and he had failed to hand it over, to the plaintiffs'. Codyre on his oath, said he had gob 15s from Maxwell to pay Wickes, which he did, and he was afterwards sent back for the amount of bill now sued for, but he never received a penuy from Maxwell to pay it. The defendant and a witness swore that Codyre was paid on this account, first, L 2, then 83 and again 3s. The Magistrate dismissed the case as .against the present defendant, and caused an information to . be laid against Codyre for perjury, upon which he was immediately arrested and locked up. H. Wick v. M'Gregorand Campbell. — This was a claim of LSO for alleged damage done to plaintiffs horse while shoeing him. After a very protracted hearing, and the examination oi about a dozen witnesses, the case was dismissed with costs. Wednesday, June 15. (Before W. H. Revell, Esq., R.M.) John Gorrick, charged with making use of obscene language on a public street. He was speaking from the street to some person in a public-house bar, and he was drunk at the time. He was further charged with resisting the police in the execution of their duty. He tried to throw down Constable Keating and tore his uniform. On the first charge he was fined L 2, or four days' imprisonment, and on the second LI or two days' imprisonment. (Before J. Greenwood, Esq., J.P.) PERJURY. Martin Codyre was charged with having committed wilful and corrupt perjury during the hearing of a civil actionWatson and Wickes v. G. F. Maxwell— before W. H. Revell, Esq., R.M., on Tuesday. Mr Newton appeared for the defence. . . William Hortou Revell : lam Resident Magistrate at Greymouth and Justice of the Peace for the Colony. The^accused was a witness in the case, Watson and Wickes v. Maxwell, a civil action for L 2 /9s2d, heard before die yesterday. I \ produce a copy of the summons, with iho aoccunt attached. The accused was called as a witness for the plaintiff. He was duly sworn before me in the usual form by the constable acting as orderly. He said that he only received 15s and 3s from Maxwell and his barman to pay for the timber which was then sued for, and named in the bill of particulars now produced. Be further stated, that Mr Maxwell . went, down with him to Wickes' yard and selected the boards which . were . required, 'ur Wickes' presence. The words were, in answer to •Wickes, "Mr Maxwell chose the boards Jin your yard, and you were present ; and further, that he got no money to pay for that material." I understood him to mean the item of LI 16s named in the bill.— On cross-examination, he again swore : "" Maxwell came to Wickes' yard with me, to select the timber, and Maxwell never gave,, me, any money to :pay for that timber, except the 15s and -/3s, for the moulding, which he had not paid because Mr, Wickes was not in at the time, and he told Ihe cook at Maxwell's to charge it to his account. The accused was called to prove that the timber was got on Maxwell's account by him. The witness was asked whether the accused's evidence was material to the issue then before 1 the Court, but Mr Newton strongly objected, because the expression of such an opinion would be making the wituess the. judge. It was for the Bench, alone to judge of the materiality of ihe evidence- to the issue. The Bench overruled the objection, and asked the witness whether the evidence given by the accused was material to the case he was hearing ? Witness : I did consider it material to the case then before me. .Cross-examined : He did not speak of having received L 2 from Mr Maxwell on account of his labor. . George Frederick Maxwell : lam a publican in Greymouth, and know the accused. About February last he .did some work for me— to roof over a part-jof the kitchen, and put some lining round a portion of the bar. I was to provide the material, and he was to do the labor. I gave him money to pay for the timber— f 15s. When he was doing the work in the bar, I told him not to run up a bill for - the timber, but to tell me what the lumber would cost, and I would give him the money to pay for it. He went to select the lumber himself, and I gave him two LI notes to pay for it. The barman was present at the time. I never, on any occasion on which he was working for me, accompanied him to Wickes' timber-yard to select the timber. I also paid him for his labor in addition to the L 2. I was yesterday sued by Watson and Wickes for the sura of L 2 9s 2d for the lumber stated to have been got by the accused for the work in my bar. The accused gave evidence for the plaintiffs, stating that I gave him no money to pay for the lumber for the last job. Cross-examined : I cannot recollect the accused giving me a receipt for . the 15s; say whether the roofing job or the lining of the bar was done first. 1 only paid 15s for the lumber used in the roofing job. I gave him the L 2 when he wanted the lumber to do up the bar. It might have been a day or two after! gave him the order. The roofing job was completed before this. I think it was within a month of giving, him the 15s that I gave him the L 2. 1 told him to go and pay for the lumber he required, in the hearing of the barman. I paid the accused for his labor more than L 3. I cannot be certain as to the amount. Ido not recollect giving him L 2 as part .payment of his wages. He was not drinkiug hard during the time he was working for me. The accused did not give me a bill for the price of this lumber. Mr Wickes left a -bill for it, and afterwards tne accused brought me a bill, and asked me why I refused to pay it. I said,! bad no account with, Mr Wickes, and that I had given him (the prisoner) money to pay for it. Louis Leveign, barman to the last witness, , corroborated his evidence, as to the payment to the accused of the L 2. He was perfectly sober when he got it. Edmund Wickes, timber merchant, Greymouth : On or about February last accused obtained timber from me for, Mr Maxwell. I gave him what he wanted, . add a bill for it, amounting te 15s or 17s. He brought me back the cash, and I receipted, the .bill. Adayortwo afterwards begot some more material, and told me to book it to Mr Maxwell. I told him what it would come to. He said lie was working for Mr Maxwell at the time. To the best of my knowledge, Mr Maxwell

never accompanied accused to my yard to select timber. I have not yet been paid for the timber taken away by the accused on the second occasion. I sued Mr Maxwell for the amount yesterday, and lost the case. The acensed was sworn as a witness on my behalf, and said he obtained the material, for Mr Maxwell, and that he had not received payment for it. He also said that Mr Maxwell accompanied him to my yard, to pick out tlie timber he required, and that I was present at the time. I,' VY?;' t- s .;. ' '•" > / ■„-■ Cross-examined- I le'ft 5 « bill nt Mr Maxwell's, and afterwards sent the accused about it. When he returned he i told me that' Maxwell said he hjad given liim the' money, and head vised me to sue^ Maxwell, as he never received a penny of it. This took place about April. I told prisoner; to see Maxwell and try aucl settle the affair, but he adhered to his statement that he never received the money.. Prisoner was .drinking heavily when he! \ytfa working for Maxwell.:. About the same time I remember' prisoner coming to my yard with Mr Sheedy to pick out boards similar to those obtained for Maxwell. I was present at that time. Mounted-constable Muller proved the administration, of the oath to jthe prisoner when lie was a witness on the previous day. When he arrested the prisoner lie said he would 'not for a great deal have sworn as those two men had that day; Mr Newton addressed the Bench for ihe prisoner. • . : The Magistrate said it was plain that the accused had sworn falsely during the case on the previous day, but he did not think it was done either wilfully or corruptly. He had got the money, but he had been drinking hard at the time,. and had forgot all about it ; and it was evident that he had confounded Maxwell with Sheedy as to going down .to the yard and chosing the timber. The charge would be dismissed..