Nullius addict us jurare in verba magistri.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 16, Issue 858, 4 November 1870, Page 2

Nullius addict us jurare in verba magistri.

Cricket are informed that a cricket match of the Clarendon Club —married v. single will fake place on Clive Square at },3Q p f ru. tomorrow.

Supreme circuit sittings pf the Supreme Court, for the despatch pf civil and criminal business, will be held on Tuesday next, Bth inst., at 10 a.nl. —We observe that- in the Herald this morning the hour was erroneously state 4 to le I o'clock. Resident Magistrate's Court.This morning the following civil cases came before the Resident Magistrate ; fSeqrles v. ffawker- A claim of £l2 13s for twelve weeks' wages as farm labor ?er at <£l, and thirteen day*?' board and , lodging for a child at Is per 4ay. The account was disputed by the defendant, who stated that he had engaged plaintiff at 15s per week, and woiijd given him more, as he had a bad hand, and could do very little work. This latter statement was corroborated by a witness, Mrs Sloye, wljo said that plaintiff had taken a fortnight to plough afyout an acre of ground with a good tea-m, With regard to the child, defendant said Jje {iad already paicl plainsi#"'s, wife £1 for taking charge of it, The gyidencp altpgethpr was very conflicting, and judginent was given for plaintiff t9V tfre ftiupunt claiweij antf £1 7s

I costs. v. Searles-*~A claim of I 414 brought as a set-off The account; i was made up by charges for rations supplied to wife and children, 41 horse hire, an 4 «£3 for damage done to a boat by defendant, Every j item of this was disputed; being evidently swearing " on one side or the other. Mi's Sfloye testsed to the correGtiioss of the account; and on the application of defendant (who said be had not *<een the account before coming into Court) the Gaae was adjourned till tomorrow morning, in order that he might bring his wife as a witneß3.-rr Sims v, Britten—r-A claim of 43, advertised as a rewai d for information relative to a suit of uniform which had been lost from the Clarendon Hotel, and was? restored by plaintiff. Mr Cuff (who appeared for plaintiff) said that this action had been brought, not only to recover the money, but in consequence of certain aspersions which had been cast upon his client as to the manin which he became possessed of the articles in question. Plaintiff deposed that he was a tailor, living in Napier. On the sth October his children were playing on the beach, and when they came home, his eldest boy told him they had seen a parcel of trooper's things lying on the beach, which must have been there for more than an hour. He sent the boy for the parcel, which he brought home, and wa« found to be addressed " Major Roberts, passenger, * Keera.'" Pkintiffopened the parcel and examined the contents, which proved to be a suit of uniform, and two military caps The brown paper wrapper he lost. Knowing that Major Roberts was at f aupo, and being acquaimed with Sergeant Noble, then stationed at Runanga, he wrote a note to the latter officer on the following day, informing him that he had found a parcel of uniform belonging to Major Roberts. He received a reply from Sergeant Noble, who stated that he had given Major Roberts information of the fact Some days afterwards Sergeant Baker came to his shop, and asked if any one had been offering h jni tary clothing for sale. He replied, " No: but if you have come about Major Roberts's thing*, I have them ; lying here." Sergeant Baker said a: reward of 43 had been offered for their recovery. Plaintiff replied that he was not aware of it, Sergeant Baker then left, but soon afterwards returned with Mr Britten, and pointed out the advertisement in the Herald, signed by that gentleman, in whWi the reward was offered. Plaintiff then delivered the articles to Sergeant Baker, saying, " I shall expect the 43 reward." Mr Britten replied, "That will be all right, after »e have communicated with Major Roberts." He had since refused to pay the money. Tn answer to a question by Mr Britten, plaintiff sai I that he had called on him after delivering the things, and said he Jhad done wrong in letting them go without receiving the money. The evidence relating to the finding of the parcel was confirmed by plaintiff's son, who deposed that on finding it he had torn it open at the end to see what it contained. In reply to the Magis trate, Mr Britten .said he had not paid the money because he did not recognise Sims at all in tjie master. He had received a telegram from Major Roberts to the effect that a portion of the missing property vas in the possession of the plaintiff, and he had gone there in company wiih Sergt. Baker and obtain ed it. He did not obtain the information from Sims, and therefore .did not feel justified in paying him the reward, Jn reply to a question by the Magistrate, why he had not given information to the police or at the Constabulary office, the plaintiff said he did not know that tliere was a Constabulary office in Napier. In giving judgment for the plaintiff, his Worship remarked that there was no reason to doubt the statement he had made; but that the defendant had good grounds for contesting the payment of the reward. There were many people who would disdain to seek or to accept a reward in a matter of this kind; but his part was merely to adminkter the law. iVlr Cuff applied for the counsel's fee also; but this was disallowed by his Worship, who observed thajl in % small case of this kind jf a man employed counsel, he must be prepared to pav counsel's fees. Judgment for plaintiff for £3 and 9s