Hawke's Bay Times. Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 1872.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 19, Issue 1341, 5 June 1872, Page 2

Hawke's Bay Times. Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 1872.

The -want of a pilot at Wairoa has Jong been felt, and we are glad now to hear that the appointment has been conferred on Mr. L). M'Guire, of this port, whose knowledge of the intricacies of that rivet should lit him in a high degree for the position he has obtained.

In the District Court this morning, the application of Mr Lascelies, mi behalf of the defendants, for a new trial in the case of Bell v. the Victoria In surance Compan , was refused, with costs, ,£3 3s, A ful'er report of the decision will appear to-morrow.

In the Resident Magistrate's Court this morning, Mr Laseelles addressed the Court at great length in the case of Button v. Peacock, Smith & Co. He maintained that the goods had clearly passed from Sutton to Leonard, that "the tact of their bearing Ids mark was sufficient proof; and, further, that the defendants knew nothing of the plaintiff in the matter ; the goods had been left in their charge by Leonard, and if they had delivered them on the plaintiff's order, they would have been liable to Leonard for their value. Mr Lascelles jaii-ed a great number of legal points, and quoted largely from precedents bearing more or less on the subject.— Mr Lee replied. He maintained that the goods were in Leonard's possession merely as Mr Sutton's agent, and that this was shown by the fact of Mr Sutton, not Mr Leonard, having the Government contract to supply the oats, and being bound, under a penalty of i-200, to fulfil the contract.—The Resi dent Magistrate, in giving judgment, said he had carefully considered the evidence, and thought it unnecessary to follow the various legal questions which had been raised. From the evidence of Mr Sutton himself he was convinced that the oats were really the property of Mv Leonard, and this opinion was confirmed by the fact of their bearing his brand, and various other details which liad transpired. This being the case, it was unnecessary to enter into the consideration of the legal points which had been raised —Judgment for defendant, with expenses of witnesses, £7 3s. An individual was charged, on the complaint of M\- Miller, jailer, with speaking to one of the female lunatics through a window, and passing in a bottle containing wine. It appeared that the lunatic in question was the wife of the accused, and Mr Miller not wishing to press the charge, he was disged with :t caution against.a repe* titUift of the Qiicuce,