SUPREME COURT.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 13, Issue 684, 21 May 1869, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

[Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.J THURSDAY, 13th MAY. The Court sat in banco. Mr Wilson, for a native, Waka, applied for an injunction restraining Mr Henry Parker from receiving any money under a particular deed between the parties. The Deputy Registrar was appointed receiver until the hearing of the case. —The issues in the civil case of France v. Buchanan were settled.—Mr Wilson, for Mr Carlyon, moved for a rule nisi for leave to file a criminal information against T. B. Harding, proprietor of the Hawke's Bay Times, and John Begg, as the publisher and author of alleged libels in the issues of this paper, dated April 12th and May 10th. After some argument, owing, we understand, to the i formal manner in which the application was made, it was modified, and the rule granted. Accordingly, the defendants were given Tuesday to appear "to show cause why an information should not be exhibited against them for certain misdemeanors iu printing and publishing certain scandalous libels."

CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

FRIDAY, 14th MAY. HIGH TBEASON. Matene ie Karo, Rewi Totitoti, and He* iaraJca te Oilcau, the three natives charged •with this offence were brought up. The witnesses against these natives not having arrived, and the depositions taken before the magistrate being informal, Mr Wilson applied that the trial might take place in Wellington, next sitting of the Supreme Court, on the ground that the ends of justice would be better served. After a long argument, the prisoner having nothing to say against the arrangement, the application was granted, and they were removed. The Grand J ury were then discharged. HOESE STEALING. Thomas Duneen, a lad, was charged with having, on the 80th April, stolen a gelding, the property of George Brewer. Thomas Scully, luspector of Police, deposed to having found Mr Brewer's horse on the 3rd May, at Mr Focett's stables, where it had been left by the prisoner. George Brewer, blacksmith, Kaikora, deposed that on the evening of the 20th April he missed the horse irom his paddock where he had left it, and found another horse, sweating, in its place. He next saw his own horse at Napier, in the possession of the police. Charles Focett deposed to the prisoner leaving the horse at his stables. The prisoner, in defence, said that he had not stolen the horse, but had got it from a man named Henry Williams in exchange for one of his own, and called a witness to prove that Williams now had a horse which had recently belonged to him. The jury, after long c nsideration, found the prisoner guilty. Inspector fcicully, being called to state his knowledge of the prisoner, said that he believed he and Williams had once before been cocerned in a case of horse-stealing. His Honor in passing sentence said that in a previous case of this kind he had intimated that he would make an example of the next person guilty of this crime. Taking into consideration "the youth of the prisoner, however, he would not inflict a heavier punishment than he had done on that occasion; but would give him the same sentence —ten years' penal servitude.

CIVIL CASUS.

EETNOXDS V. EOBINSON. A claim for damages. The plaintiff, Thomas Reynolds, is an hotel keeper iu Havelock. The evidence showed that about eighteen months ago his premises were burnt, and he was put to great expense in replacing them. In consequence, he became ernbarassed, and made a composition with his creditors, pajing them 6s. Bd. in the pound, in instalments at six and nine months. The defendant, one of the creditors, in consideration of the plaintiff agreeing to settle his claim in full, guaranteed the bills, and took security over the stock. Tha arrangement was that defendant was to be paid in quarterly instalments of £3O ; to have the power of examining the books, and in cise of the nonpayment of the instalments, on the business proving unremunerative, or the falsification of accounts, to have power to seize and dispose of the stock. The first quarterly instalment was paid ; but before the Becond one was due, the defendant one day, after examining the books, seized the property and sold it by auction. The amount realized was £251, insufficient to satisfy his claim. The plaintiff set forth that there was no just cause for the seizure, and claimed damages £SOO. The case occupied nearly the whole of the day, and wus decided in favor of plaintiff —damages £BS.

SATURDAY, 15th MAY. BBANCE V. BUCHANAN. An action to recover £2OO, part rent of a certain house in Coote-road, and the remainder damages for illegal occupation of the same. Mr Wilson for plaintiff; Mr Cuff for defendant. The evidence was taken at great length, his Honor having several times to remind counsel that it was a civil, and not a matrimonial case. August Koch deposed: I know the house in Coote-road, formerly occupied by Mr France, and should consider it worth £4O per annum. Mr Buchanan used to live in a house close to France’s, but soon

after Mrs Buchanan died, iu 1866, he lodged at France's, and has lived there off and on ever since. He lived there some time before Mr France left. I have often visited him there. Mrs France was generally in the parlor when I went, but would leave when I went in. By Mr Cuff — France and Buohanan were on very good -terms before France left.-I-never heard of them having any quarrel. I have known France ten years, and he often spoke, me about his private affairs. Mrs France and the late Mrs Buchanan were friends. Mr Buchanan has two sons and two daughters. The daughters have lived at France's, for I remember receiving them on their arrival at the Spit and and taking thenv there during Mr Buchanan's absonce. I believe that was in March 1867- Oneof them lives there still. My daughter and female servant have often visited Mrs France and slept in the house when she has been alone. By Mr Wilson—l do not know of any occasion when Mrs France and the defendant have been alone in the house. When I have been there there, have always been Mr Buchanan's daughters or some other persons present. The house is a lodginghouse. Robert France on his oath deposed : I was a storekeeper in this town, and know defendant. He came to my house in September 1866, and lodged there about three months. 1 ordered him off because he was bounceable and insolent, and said things he ought not. I saw an attachment between him and my wife. His Honor said that this was not evidence. What were the signs of that attachment ? The witness (with great hesitation) : He had too much influence over her, and I was despised in her eyes. She always sided with Buchanan in everything. His Honor: What do you mean by siding with Buchanan ? In your disputes or arguments with him ? Witness: No, but she always used to side with him, and I knew there was something wrong because I was contemptible in their eyes, and they despised me. Mr Wilson: Your Honor, these are the trifles lighter than air that the poet speaks of. His Honor : Possibly so, Mr Wilson ; but " trifles light as air " though " confirmation strong as proofs of Holy Writ" to a jealous man, may not be so to the minds of a jury. Witness : I often quarrelled with my wife; I accused her of rusconduct with defendant: I don't think I ever did so in his presence. All our quarrels arose from my accusations of unfaithfulness. I suspected her because she had confessed committing adultery with a lodger in the bouse some years ago, and had said she would go with any man, and compel me to support hsr. She has many a time told me her mind was burning on account of her wickedness. I told defendant to go away and never come any more. I went away to Japan in 1866, leaving Mr Lyndon my attorney. I made provision for my wife during the two years I was absent. I advanced her more than £6OO, including the stock and £LOO sent. I went away privately, but my wife knew I was going. I told her that Buchanan should come no more. I returned in December, 1868. Mr Buchanan was in my house when I came back. I afterwards went there with Mr Scully, aud Mr Buchanan opened the door. I said, "Mr Buchanan, I order you out of my house." He said, " I'm in, and I sha'n'fc go out. I have a lease." He Bhul the door in my face. He never paid me any rent, aud I summoned him in the Resident Magistrate's Court, but the Court could not decide the case. By Mr Cuff—l quarrelled with Mr Buchanan before he lelt. I had thought of running away before then, his conduct was se bad. I did tell him before he left that I would not charge him for boird and lodging, as he was a volunteer captain. He was scornful, and said he would pay. I was glad to get away with my life. After my return I first went to my house in March. I had not gone before because my wife was bad.—Mr Cuff: 111? —Witness: No, she was bad; I told you she admitted it before I left. I heard some time before that Mr Buchanan was in Wellington.—Mr Cuff: Then why did you not go while he was away ?—Witness : Because my wife was bad. The letter produced is my writing ; I wrote it fromTauranga.—Mr Wlison objected to the letter being read, and his Honor ruled that it was inadmissable. Thomas Scully, Inspector of Police, said he knew both plaintiff and defendant. Went with plaintiff to his house on 20th March last. Buchanan answered the door. France said, " I've come to turn you out of the house." Buchanan said he had leased the house, and plaintiff at once walked away. The door was then shut. Edward Lyndon deposed that he was plaintiff's agent during his absence. Mr Buchanan called on him, as Mrs France's particular friend, to see the power of at« torney. Witness refused to show it to him. John Buchanan, sworn, deposed : I am a sheepfarmer, and have known plaintiff ever since I came to the Colony. He was my immediate neighbor f .r two or three years, and often consulted me about his affairs. I came to Napier from my station at the end of September or beginning of October, 1866, and remained there until after the action of Omaranui. I Jeft early iu December, simply because I wished to return to my station. I have heard Mr France's evidence, and the statement he made about our having a quarrel is utterly false. We never had a quarrel or word of difference on any subject;. Neither he nor Mrs France ever made any allusion to me about their domestic differences. Lato on the evening previous to my leaving, be-

fore retiring to rest, I said, " I shall be going in the morning, Prance; I wish you would make out my bill, and I will pay you." He said, " O, no, you've been fighting for me and my property while I was asleep, and I shall make no bill.' I replied in a friendly manner, " I insist upon having a bill. I shall be away before you are up in the morning to go-at seven.* "He said he would be up as soon as I was. So he was, and got my breokfust vready before I left. About the middle of January 1 came to Napier, and went as usual to lodge at F ranee's, and found from Mrs France that he had left. Shortly afterwards she received a letter from him, which she showed me—that letter which has not been received as evidence. I have paid Mrs France 25s per week for board and lodging ever since, whether I have stayed there or not, as a daughter of mine lives there. Mr Wilson objected to evidence of payment, but his Honor overruled the objection. Witness continued j I did not see plaintiff again till December 1368 ; and not to speak to him till last March, whrn a knock came to the door, which I opened. Mr France was outside. He said "I've come to turn you out." I said "You can't," and may have added " I've leased the house." He immediately turned on his heel and went away, and I closed the door. I remained in possession till three days ago. By Mr Wilson: I don't think any definite arrangement had been entered into between Mrs France and myself about the rent up to July 1867. Mrs France soon after fixed the rate at 25/- per week, ana I paid the arrears from the first. I remember Mr Pearse coming for the education rate and I told him that at the time it was. due I was merely a lodger. The Court theu adjourned for half-an-hour. Eliza France deposed: I am wife of the plaintiff. I remember December 1866. My husband never accused me of acting improperly with Mr Buchanan, nor did I ever admit having done so. So far as I know there was never any quarrel between my husband and Mr Buchanan, nor did I ever know my husband order him to leave the home. Mr France invited Mr Buchanan in October, 1866, and never told me not to allow him to come to the house. Near the end of December, before Christmas, Mr Buchanan left to go to his station. On Christmas moraing I was surprised to see my husband dressed, and asked him if he was going out. He said he might or he might not. He did not mention Mr Buchanan's name. He went out, and I did not know what had become of him till I received a letter from him from Tauranga. Soon afterwards Mr Buchanan came back to Napier and lodged in my house, paying me 25s per week for board and lodging. France came back to the house on the 2:2nd March this year. The night before Mr Bnchanan left in December, 1861, I was present at a conversation between him and my husband. Mr Buchanan said he was going away early in the morning, and wanted his bill, saying he had been a great deal of trouble to us. My husband said no, he had been fighting for us. and he would not charge him. Alter Mr Buchanan had gone all my husband said to me about him was, " We won t charge Mr Buchanan anything this time; but if he comes again you may charge him." My husband has been jealous of me for years without the slightest cause; but he never made any accusations against me in Mr Buchanan's presence. The statement he made about admission of mine is false. I never made such an admission ; but have always told him I was innocent of anything of the kind. His Honor here, by consent of counsel, permitted a juryman named Edward Caldwell to retire, saying he was evidently not in a fit condition to perform his duty. He requested Mr Inspector Scully to take him in charge and examine him, and if he was drunk to report the fact to the Court at the termination of the case. Witness continued: France's conduct was that of a jealous man, and he used very improper language to me. He never showed any jealousy of Buchanan; but for years my husband and 1 had never spoken except on business matters, or when he was accusing me. He did not treat me at all as his wife. I believe his jealousy has affected his mind. By Mr Wilson : After France had gone I used to consult Mr Buchanan about my affairs. Mr Cuff addressed the jury. He said he did not wish to accuse the plaintiff of deliberate perjury, but must ask the jury to take into consideration the state of his mind. Mr Wilson said that his Honor would be obliged to rule in plaintiff's favor ou points of law. The rent paid to Mas France was at defendant's peril; and did not at all alter the case. His Honor would tell the jury differently. It would indeed be a hard case if a lodger in the house of a married woman whose husband was absent should have to pay his rent twice over if the husband demanded it. In summing up, he must remark that the plaintiff, whatever were his grounds, had evidently been suffering from one c.f the greatest calamities which could afflict the mind of man—the passion of jealousy. From a person in that state we could not expect evidence given with that calm truthfulness which characterized an unimpassioned mind. It was in pity and sympathy for the man that he spoke, but in no other way could he reconcile tha discrepancies in the evidence. He explained that the case rested on a single issue—whether defendant knowingly occupied the house against the wiil of plaintiff. If they believed he had done so they would hare to find a verdict fox about half the

rent of the house during the two years, with such damages as they considered just; but if, on the contrary, they believed tha defendant's story, plaintiff was only entitled to rent and damages for the two months* 1 after he ordered defendant out of the house. The jury, after some deliberation, foundthat "the defendant had not occupied the house for the two years without the consent of plaintiff, and accordingly; gave verdict for plaintiff for the two rent only—£B 10s., with costs. His Honor then discharged them, with the thanks ot the Queen and the Colony. Edward Caldwell was brought beforethe Judge by Inspector Scully, who stated that he had examined him, and found he was drunk. His Honor severely reprimanded him, and ordered him to be locked up, to be afterwards dealt with by the Resident Magistrate. MONDAY, 17th MAY. The Court sat in bankruptcy. Cartwright Brown and M.Milne were examined and discharged. TUESDAY, 18th MAY. The principal business was the case of libel—ltegina v. Harding and Another. Mr John Begg appeared to show cause why the rule should not be made absolute, and it was ultimately discharged. As this case was of some public importance we shall publish a fuller report in next issue.