RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1309, 9 October 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Tuesday, October 8. (Before W. H. Revell, Esq., R.M.) Obscene Lanoubge. — Chase v. Kilner. — This was a charge of making use of obscene language in a public place within the hearing of passers-by. The parties are neighbors, residing on the tramway, and have been frequently before the Court in consequence of previous quarrels. After evidence had been heard, the defendant was fined 10s and costs. Notice of appeal wag given by Mr Newton. —ami. oases. H. Wolters v. Mrs Trahey.— This was a fraud summons for L 2 16s 6d. The defendant stated that she had paid the amount to a person named Cochrane, who served the summons, The plaintiff stated that he was aware Oochrane had received the money, but as he was not authorised to do so, and had not accounted to him for it, he brought this action, and the defendant would have her remedy against Cochrane. The Magistrate considered that when Cochrane received the money he was employed as the agent of the plaintiff, and the case would be dismissed. Maxwell and Co. v. M'Gahen.— Claim of L 3 ; judgment confessed, amount to be paid within one month, or one month's imprisonment. Card v. Rutton.— A claim of L 7. Defendant paid into Court L 4, and pleaded payment of L 3 for which he had not been credited. Judgment for amount paid into Courfcj with costs. . " In the following cases judgments were confessed : — Tho3. Joyce v. Ellen Ruane, Lll ; Simmons v. Harrison, L 6 43 6d ; Coates v. Trahey, L41 12a 4d. Magoffin v. Henderson. — A claim of Lls, cash lent. It appeared that the defendant had been arrested, on the supposition that he. was about to leave the Colony, and the amount, of the claim, with L 3 added, had been deposited with the bailiff by Mr Sommers in lieu of bail, as a guarantee for his appearance to answer the s,ummpnß. Mv -Guinness appeared for t\\e defpndanfe, and ma/ie a preliminary application for an order that | the money so deposited should be handed back to Mr Sommers. Mr Perkins appeared for the plaintiff, and objected. Mr Newton appeared for the Provisional Trustee in Bankruptcy (the defendant having, since his arrest, filed his schedule) and also objected, because the .trustee claimed the money for the benefit of the general body of creditors. After a long triangular legal discussion, the Magistrate held that he could make no order as sought until the case had been heard, as the Act stated that money so deposited was to be repaid or disposed of "accord-

ing to the judgment of the Court." The defendant was then called upon, and confessed judgment. The same legal arguments were again repeated as to ay ho was the proper recipient of the deposit-money, when the Magistrate made an order for the amount of the judgment to be paid out of the sum deposited with the bailiff. A. R. Guinness v. J. Basch.— This was a re-hearing of a claim for LlO 12s 6d, for legal costs incurred on behalf of one Levin ski, in May, 1870, and which were alleged to have been so incurred on the instructions of the defendant. Mr Newton appeared for the plaintiff, and MrPerkius for the defendant. Mr Perkins asked if certain books and documents were in Court, of which notice to produce had been given. Mr Newton replied that part of them only would be produced. Mr Perkins objected to accept part, and withdrew his notice to produce. E. A. Drury said : I am clerk to th« plaintiff, and know the defendant by sight. I remember him in April, 1870, coming into Mr Guinness's office, and giving him instructions to take proceedings for the liberation of a person named Levinski, who was then a debtor in custody. The office then consisted of one room, and the clerks heard all, that passed. I heard Guinness ask about the payment of the costs, when Basch said that he was to be charged, and would 'pay. Throughout the whole of the proceedings charged, for Basch was always treated as the principal, and was so debited in the office books. In May, 1870, 1 served a signed copy of the bill of costs on Basch personally, and another copy about three months ago. When I took the first bill, Basch said something about its being all right, and that he would attend to it, or that he would write to him. Basch on no occasion raised any objection to his being held liable for the amount. Defendant was in Guinuess's office on several occasions in connection with these proceedings. At the last hearing of this case, I remember Basch stating that he was only once in Mr Guinness's office, and that was in company with Mr Perkins, for the purpose of signing a lease. This I consider to be utterly false. A bill of costs was never given to Levinski's, as Basch -was considered responsible throughout — A. B. Guinness, solicitor, corroborated all the evidence of the previous witness as to the defendant coming 'to his office and giving instructions for Levinski's liberation, and taking the responsibility of the costs upon himself. Unless this had been done he would not | have taken the matter in hand, considering Levinski's circumstances. Basch was several times in his office, and distinctly told him that he was responsible for the costs. There were several distinct actions included in the bill — one for Levinski's liberation, another for false imprisonment, and another for assault, in all of which he conducted the proceedings, as he considered that his retainer had never been withdrawn.— The defence was a total denial of ever having authorised or become responsible for the costs in Levinski's case; and, second, that the agreement to be binding must be in writing. On examination, the defendant said he did not go to plaintiffs office in th« first instance, but sent Mr Jones, and plaintiff came down to his shop, after which they went to the prison to see Levinski, where he (Levinski) gave all the instructions for the proceedings. After hearing the evidence given that day, he would not swear positively that he did not go to the plaintiffs office; but he was positive that he was never asked to be responsible for the costs in the case, and never 3aid that he would pay them. He never gave any of the instructions to the plaintiff for which he was charged. When the first bill of costs was served on him, Drury said "Send it after him," which he did, and Guinness received a letter in reply from Levinski. He denied that Drury ever served a second bill of costs on him ; he simply came into the shop and asked for the amount of Levinski's cost 3. In cross-examination, the witness was hard pressed whether he would withdraw the statement he made at the last hearing of the ease that he was only once in plaintiffs office, but he declined either to withdraw or repeat the statement after what had been 3woru by the two previous witnesses.; — B. Jones said he remembered carrying several messages from Levinski to Guinness, and also one from Basch, to the effect that Levinski wanted to see him. — After counsel had addressed' the Bench at considerable length, the Magistrate said that from the evidence he could not look upon this as a guarantee for all the costs, Bagch must be looked upon as the principal in the first case, but the bill included costs in several actions, and the defendant appeared to have only incurred responsibility for the first. Instructions for proceedings in the others were reoeived from Lovinski personally, and he must be held responsible. -^Judgment for plaintiff L 5 143 Qd and costs. Several other- cases on the list were ad-? journed until this morning.