RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURTS

Grey River Argus, Volume X, Issue 862, 2 May 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURTS

AHAURA,

Thursday, April 27. (Before 0. Whitefoord, Esq., R.M.) William Donovan was charged with assaulting Fanny Venables at Half-Ounce on the 31st March. The complainant was a dancing girl, living in a casino next door to the defendant's shop. / On the day in question a quarrel arose, in consequence, a3 the defendant alleged, of the bad language used by the complainant. The assault was of the most frivolous nature, and consisted of the defendant throwing a glass of water into complainant's face. The Magistrate considered that defendant had no business to take the law into his own hands ; if the complainant annoyed him he had a remedy. Defendant was bound over on his own recognisances to keep the peace and to pay the costs of the action. Donovan v. Venables. — A charge of using abusive and offensive language towards complainant. This case arose out of the last, but it was withdrawn at complaiuant'a reqnest. The Police v. Wyndham. — This case was heard at a former sitting of the Court, and the judgment was reserved on a point of law raised by Mr G'linness for the defendant. The defendant was charged with selling spirits at Half-Ounce without a license. The point raised was that the house in which defendant sold the liquor had been licensed, but the bailiff seized the license and sold it under a distress warrant. It was contended for the defendant that the bailiff could not legally sell a spirit license, and that, therefore, the house in which defendant exposed the liquor was still licensed. His Woiship held the interpretation of the law to be correct, and dismissed the charge. Bourke v. Feir. — A charge of assault at Napoleon. — Plaintiff did not appear, and the defendant was allowed 25s costs. • civil cases. Guinness v. Catlin. — A fraud summons for L 3 16s. An order was made that defendant should pay 20s per week. Jones v. Nixon.— A fraud summons for L 6 4s 6d. Defendant, after a long examination, was ordered to pay 30s per week. M 'Donald v. Harrington. — A fraud summons for L 5 19s 3d. Defendant was ordered to pay 20s per week, with costs. Voolich and Paul v. Michael Sheehan. — An action to recover L 39 15s, the value of a horse and for horse hire. The plaintiffs hired out a horse to defendant to proceed from the Little Grey Junction to Murray Creek. He paid 30s for the use of the horse for two days. Defendant did not bring the horse back at the appointed time, and at the end of 12 days the plaintiff (Voolich) went to look after it. He found the defendant and a man named Brien both riding the horse down the bed of the Inangahua river. He refused to take the horse back again, and had not seen it since. Tho defance was that the horse was totally unfit to be hired out. Its shoes came off in the Saddle bush, its teeth came out, and it refused to eat on the Inangahua. The horse kicked the defendant, and if its hoof had been perfect his left leg might have been broken, and instead of two men being found riding the animal, it was more likely it would take two men to carry it. The only thing which troubled the defendant's mind was while on his journey he might not be able to deliver the " moke" to its owner alive. This affected him so much that he was unable tc attend to other business, and he took the horse to Garvey's Creek, nearly twenty miles further than his original destination, before he recollected himself. The Magistrate said he had no doubt the defendant and Brien rode the horse through all the worst parts of the Saddle rode, and if the animal knocked up it was through the ill-usage it received from defendant. Judgment would be given for plaintiff for LlO, with L 5 damages, and costs of Court, costs of two witnesses and professional fee. Mr Staite for plaintiff. Lardi v. Crowe and M f Cole. — Claim for L2l 12s for packing. Judgment by default with costs. David Kingham v. George Mason. — A claim of Lll lls 6|d for goods and cash supplied on defendant's order. A set-off was filed for LSO. The parties to the suite were formerly partners, and they are both large cattle dealers. They dissolved partnership on 26th January, 1869, and under the terms of the dissolution Kingham was to pay LSO for the outstanding doubtful debts. This LSO has not been paid, and now formed the set-off. This set-off was gone into first. When the dissolution took place the parties had 57 head store cattle. According to Mason's account Kingham-tfas in want of ready money, and they both agreed to sell half the number of store cattle and divide the proceeds. The cattle were sold, and Kingham paid all the money into the bank to his own credit to meet his own engagements. Mason bought 400 sheep at auction at the same time, and, wanting money, he wrote to Kingham, who sent him L2O and a cheque for L2O, which was duly honored. As Mason's half of the proceeds of the cattle sale amounted to L 75 14s 3d there was a balance coming to him on this transaction. The defendant denied the set-off ; he said that the LSO to be given for the debts had been arranged long ago. Although he was to receive all the debts, the first LlO which was paid came from a butcher named Gittoes, at Nelson Creek, and Mason received it, and uever gave him (Kingham) credit for it, although he (Mason) told him he received it, amd consequently hearing of this case lasted for some hours. Several letters which passed between the parties were put in and read. Transactions in sheep, subsequent to the dissolution, with the Count de la Pasture and others were explained, and generally it appeared that although there was a formal dissolution of partnership, they still worked together when they saw an opportunity of profitably investing their capital. His Worship, in giving judgment, said he would hold the parties to the terms of the dissolution of partnership, and Kingham wouM have to take the book debts and p ay the stipulated amount for them. A verdict •■» > «»uldbe for Mason for L 24 2s 9d, being the amount of the set-off, less the plaintiffs claim, and the difference in < the accounts, as agreed to, with costs. Mr 1 Staite, for the plaintiff, gave notice of ] appeal, on the ground that the Magistrate 1 had exceeded his jurisdiction in giving a ] verdict for the defendant for any portion <

of the set-off, more than the amount the plaintiff's claim, as the surplmfamount was not sued for by the plaintiff. Mr Staite for plaintiff, and Mr Guinness for defendant. White and Garth v Shaw.— A claim of Ll3 9s 3d for goods supplied and packing. The defendant admitted the debt, but put in a set-off. The Magistrate said he couldn't make head or tail of the defendant's contra account, and gave judgment for the full amount claimed with costs. Mr Guinness for plaintiffs^ " •■-... -^ - Hansen and Watkins v. Jas. Molloy. — This was an inter-pleader summons to try the ownership, of a billiard table, with fittings, at present in the house i*bf "Felix ~* Stratford, at Half-Ounce; and which had been seized by the bailiff to satisfy a judgment obtained by the defendant against James O'Brien, late of Paddy's Gully. The plaintiff claimed, under a bill of sale, for L3B 18, given in liquidation of an account for boating and pack- , ing. Jas. O'Brien said he received full/ value for the table from Hansen and Watkins, because it was comparatively valueless at Paddy's Gully. He rented the table now from. Hansen and Watkins for 10s per week. In cross-examination • this witness said that at the time of sale it was impossible to draw out a proper agreement at Paddy's Gully, because " there was no writing materials to be had there." For the defence it was urged that the sale to Hansen and Watson was fraudulent, inasmuch as the money was not actually due then at the time the property was made over to them, and that even if the money was due it was a fraudulent preference. His Worship agreed, and ordered the bailiff to sell and satisfy the defendant's claim. Mr Staite for plaintiffs, Mr Guinness for defendant. Several applications for agricultural areas in the neighborhood of the Hikmatua were granted in the Warden's Court, and after disposing of a number of mining applications, both Courts were adjourned to May 11 .