THE Hawke's Bay Times. Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri. TUESDAY, 17th NOVEMBER, 1874.

Hawke's Bay Times, Issue 1629, 17 November 1874, Page 430

THE Hawke's Bay Times. Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri. TUESDAY, 17th NOVEMBER, 1874.

The recent dinner in honor of Sir Donald M'Lean was taken advantage of by Mr Omond to make a kind of political manifesto to his constituents), Since his return from Wellington, on the prorogation of the Afscnibly, it Si'eins his time lias been fully occupied with other business, so that he has noc founil it convenient to meet his constituents. Moreover, Iris constituency is a large one, and its members '•o scattered, that to do them ju-tice several public meetings ought to have been held, and therefore he has held none. Further than this he did not fool it to be necessary to explain anything in his political conduct to his constituents, although he had Sfeu it stated in the local press that it was desirable for him to address them. The occasion of the social gathering, however, afforded an opportunity for an address, and he thought it would be expected that he would have something to say on the public questions of the day, although he felt that lie had very little to explain in connection with his political actions. If Mr Ormond considers the course he has adopted in this matter one that will be satisfactory to his constituency, he must suppose thorn to be of a most non-exacting nature, and content with very small things indeed. Neither the time nor the place was at all suited for such a manifesto. It was simply a social gathering to do honor to the Native Minister, and anything foreign to the object of the meeting, as was Mr Orniond'a address, could but be singularly inappropriate. That such was the belief of the meeting was evident from the impatience with which the address was received, especially towards its close.

When a representative appears before his constituents, it is assumed that they, or any one of them, may have an opportunity of proposing queries of a more or less unpleasant nature concerning points which it may be desirable to,have explained, and it generally happens that explanations, more or less satisfactory, of such doubtful questions are made, and the member in consequence is assured of the confidence of his constituency. It is needless to say that only at a public meeting called for the express purpose of asking and giving these explanations is this possible. Certainly any such course would have been oit of the question at the recent dinner to Sir D. M'Leail, and though Mr Ormond may consider that he may have nothing to explain in relation to his course of action during the late session, it by no means follows that that opinion is entertained by the elector.-, some of whom may clesiie to know something of the reasons that actuated him in particular cases. It is quite foreign to the question to tell us that his views as a Centralist were known when he was returned to the Assembly, and that he had acted strictly in aceoidance with the opinions every one knew or might have known he held on that subject, because there was no reason to suppose at the time of his election that that particular subject would become so prominent as it lias done, or that any important change in the Constitution wou'd bo contemplated during that Parliament. In fact, the question of his views as a Centralist had little or no influence with the electors at that time, and he was returned on grounds altogether apart from them It was, of course, known that he was generally favorable to the declared policy of Mr Vogel, but it could not have been expected as a necessary consequence that on such a question, for instance, as that of the re-adjustment of the representation of the colony, he would sacrifice his own convictions and the interests of the district he represented because the question was not mooted by the Government, but was brought forward by a private member not occupying a prominent or recognized position in the House. Some of the electors may possibly consider such reasoning and voting as unworthy of the person they elect as their representative. They may look for something of independence in his conduct when their interests do not exactly tally with the views of the Premier of the day, nor may they like to see those interests postponed to the personal feeling* or antipathies of their member. If a measure is in itself a wise and good one theymay reasonably expect their member to support it, especially if he knows and acknowledges it to be foi the benefit of the district vhoseinterests are entrusted to his care, and they may be excused if they fail to justify him in opposing it because it happens to be initiated by an opponent of the Government. If such is to lie the uniform action of a member—if in such a case he has indeed no course but to vote against his convictions and the intetests of his district—his attendance in the house may with advantage be dispensed with, and his vote given by proxy in the hands of the Premier. People may be justified in believing that their interests would be better served by those who would decline to sacrifice principle to party, and whose evident independence would pi-event the Government of the day always reckoning upon their votes on any ministerial question as a matter of course,

Yesterday, in the Resident Magistrate's Court, Edward Malley was charged with lunacy. This was one of those rare cases in which drink did not appear to be the cause. The accused, it was stated, was subject to fits of despondency, and in last June attempted his life. A few days ago he attempted-to ford across the harbor mouth from the Western Spit, and on the present occasion had gone to the police station, wet through, complaining that he was being pursued. He has lived many years in the district, and alwas borne a good character. In Court he seemed quite rational, and stated that he had no recollection of the various eccentricities with which he was charged. Remanded till this morning for medical examination. j

In the Resident Magistrate's Com* on Saturday, Hirini, a native, claimed from G. Faullnior, £1 5s for use of a certain cart for one week. The facts of the case were admitted, but the claim was resisted as excessive. According to the plaintiff's statement, he had left his cart in charge of defendant, a "wheelwright in Napier; and the latter lent it to a man named Bignall, whose own cart broke down in going out of town. On the following Monday, plaintiff, having a job of carrying timber for Renata, went for his cart, when defendant referred him to Bignall. To Bignall accordingly Hirini went, and applied for the vehicle; but instead of returning it, that individual kicked him behind, and locked the cart up in his paddock. He thus lost the job of carrying the timber, and a week's use of his cart. The magistrate said the main facts were undisputed, and the plaintiff had a right to be paid for the use of his property. As however, he did not appear to have suffered much loss, the whole claim would not be allowed. —Judgment for plaintiff for £l, with costs of Court.

In the Resident Magistrate's Court on Friday, S. Devenport charged A. Frazer with assaulting him. The parties concerned in this case all belong to West Clive. On Tuesday, the complainant, having been annoyed by the trespass of a dog belonging to a neighboring lodging-house, went to complain, ■when Mrs Dean, the mistress of the house, shut the door in his face. Defendant, a lodger, came out and said, " Why don't you come when her husband is at home?" He then went on to complain of Devenport having impounded an animal belonging to him ; adding, " If you pound that filly again, I'll pound you." Complainant replied, " You'd better try," whereupon Fraser, with the words," Put down those shears, then," hit him on the jaw. Devenport did not retaliate, but kept his right hand in his pocket. One of the bystanders called out, " Why do you stand that? Wire into him;" but complainant preferred taking legal redress. This account was confirmed by several witnesses in all particulars except one—they had not seen the blow struck, though they could not swear that no blow had been struck. The Resident Magistrate dismissed the information, considering the assault not sufficiently substantiated.

The Resident Magistrate's Court was occupied daring great part of Friday afternoon with a civil case, Hughes v. Karaitiana, a disputed claim of £46 14s for wages. This case had been ajonrned from the 6th October, on the application of defendant, to give him an opportunity of communicating with Mr Sheehan, solicitor, Auckland, who, he believed, could throw some light on the matter. Alter hearing the evidence, which was somewhat voluminous, Mr Sealy reserved his decision till the following morning. As the judgment then given embodied a summary of the main facts elicited, we quote it in fall. The Resident Magistrate on Saturday gave judgment in the following terms : —lt appears from the evidence given that Hughes was working more or less for Karaitiana from July. 22, 1873, to September 22, 1874. He states that he served under an engagment made at the Spit through Henry Brown as interpreter. This Brown denies, and Karaitiana also denies it. In March, 1874, Hughes made a claim for past service at 25s per week. The sum was £4l 18s. Karaitiara admits this, but says that it took him by surprise. He asked plaintiff—" Why did you not tell me before that you were going to charge this for your work?" This bill was written out and translated by Brown, and it appears Karaitiana afterwards consulted Brown about it. Hughes says Karaitiana promised to pay if he would remain, instead of going to Auckland. This Karaitiana denies, but it appears that Hughes did remain, and in the following month received £2l 5s in cash and goods without any arrangement as to a compromise. A further sum of £5 was paid in June. Karaitiana admits that he thought these sums were due to plaintiff for his services, and he makes the important admission that ho did not say he was not to work any more; and it appears that Hughes continued on the same footing as before during the remainder of the period for which the claim is made. Whatever Karaitiana's original intention may have been, I must regard his subsequent conduct as an acceptance of Hughes' services at 25s per week. With regard to the three first items in the claim, amounting to £l2 19s, very little evidence was offered. Hughes says he worked at 7s per day in Karaitiana's absence by Mrs Karaitiana's directions, 37 days in all, in 1872, whilst delayed in bootmaking for want of leather. This claim does not appear in the bill rendered on tho 17th March, and Karaitiana says tnat the shoemaking account was settled in July, 1873, but that the papers were taken by Mr Sheehan. I think this part of Hughe's claim is not proved, and must be disallowed. I give judgment for plaintiff for the balance, viz., £33 15s, and costs, £4 14s which sum includes £1 lis, the plaintiff's costs of 6th October, payment of which sum was a condition of the adjournment,

A smart and somewhat prolonged ! earthquake shock was felt in Napier dii Friday at 1.22 p.m. The district Court was occupjelT yesterday with the case of James Moyle, charged with stealing a purse containing money and other articles from the pocket of a billiard-table in September last. Mr Cotterill appeared to represent the Crown Prosecutor. The particulars will not have been forgotten by our readers, who may also remember that the only article found in the prisoner's possession which could be sworn to by the informant as having been in the purse was an ordinary bone shirt-stud. The jury found the prisoner not guilty, and lie was accordingly acquitted. As the arrest took place in Wellington, and a police officer has twice come from thence to give evidence, the expenses in this case will be considerable. Yesterday morning the Napier Artillery Volunteer Company fired for the choice of district representatives. Four members fired; averaging 85£. A" falling-off was observable in the scoring at the 600 yardsrange on account of a variable puffywind rising. We append the scores in detail:—

200yds. 400yds. GOOyds. 600yds. S. Greer 3334334 2244443 2434344 0343233 88 B. Provo 4344344 4433444 2332434 2303203 8G W. Sellara 3342444 3444443 2043444 2300323 84 H.Benouf 2343334 3333334 2234332 3303443 83 —By the regulations, Napier, Wairoa, and Poverty Bay form one district, and are allowed six representatives, who will fire on their own range on or before the 21st for choice of one representative to send to the Colonial firing at the Thames, who, to qualify, must score not less than 83 points, From the result of yesterday's shooting, Napier would seem to have a good chance. On Friday, in the Resident Magistrate's Court, there was a case under the Impounding Act—Neagle v. Cook. Plaintiff sought to recover the sum of £2 4s, being the amount of damages and driving-money paid on account of the trespass of a certain mare. Mr Lee appeared for the plaintiff; Mr Lascelles for defendant. Mr Lee first called the defendant, who deposed that on Wednesday the 28th ultimo, a mare broke open the gate of his garden; gallopped through an acre of potatoes, materially injuring the crop ; and with the assistance of a number of cattle, who followed through the breach, devoured two thousand young cabbages and " a famous radish bed," besides making great havoc with the peach-trees. Defendant saw the mare break in, and ran to turn her out, but she had got into a paddock where there was an entire horse, who quickly put defendant to flight. The gate, a substantial one, with a wooden latch, was " broken all to smash," and altogether the damage caused by the animal could not have been less than £b worth. However he had only claimed £2, and 4s driving fees. On the following (Sunday, after witness had patched his gate and otherwise repaired the damage as far as possible, plaintiff called on him, and failed to see that any damage had been done ; but " none were so blind as those who would not see." Plaintiff said that what damage there was had been caused by the wind ; but " the wind wouldn't blow potatoes up by the roots."—George Neagle, the plaintiff, deposed that on Sunday the Ist November, he called on defendant to ascertain what damage he had sustained. He saw at once that the potatoes had been eaten down by the frost, and told defendant so. He saw a few radishes, mixed up with weeds, but did not see that they had sustained,any injury. He saw no damage to the peach trees, but he did not go into that part of the garden. He told defendant that if they had been injured at this time of year, it was most likely the wind that had done it. In fact, he did not see that the mare had done any damage whatever. The gate was an old wooden makeshift. He noticed that it had been recently patched with new stuff. He did not go all round the garden. Defendant offered to take £1 for the damage ; but might have said it was because he was a friend of plaintiff's brother.—George Millan deposed that he knew defendant, and passed his garden daily. Up to the 27th October tha garden and fences were in good order, and there was promise of a fine crop. In fact, on the 27th, he remarked to Mrs Cook, as he passed, how well the potatoes looked. Next day in passing, on looking over the fence as usual, he was sorry to see the condition of the garden. He had passed the gate, and did not see what state it was in, but among the potatoes thero was " a terrible lot of damage done*" They were " all scrambled up and trampled down." He would not have taken £3 for the damage done to them. It was not the frost; there had not been any, and besides, frost caused the leaves to droop, while it did not interfere with the roots. His own potatoes were all right that morning, and in his experience he had never known frost dig holes in the ground and plough potatoes up. The damage extended over two or three chains.—Defendant recalled in reference to the offer of compromise, stated that when plaintiff first came, he expressed himself as very sorry that his mare had done the damage. Witness replied that he had thought it was a Maori mare; he did not know it belonged to a neighbor. He further said that as he dealt with plaintiff's brother, with whom he was on very friendly terms, and did not wish anything to mar their friendship, he would give him an order to the poundkeeper to release the mare on payment of £1 instead of £2. Upon this Neagle " turned on him," saying he did not believe any damage was done, and would either pay the £2 or nothing.—The Magistrate said that while in some cases the impounding regulations might be made a means of extortion, in this case the claim made by defendant had been very well made out by evidence, and in fact appeared moderate under the circumstances. He would therefore give judgment for defendant, with costs, and make an order for defendant's expenses, including solicitor's fee. These, with costs of Court, mounted up to £% Ms,

A Wellington telegram from the Press Association, dated 13th November, reports:—" The Court of Appeal was occupied to-day with the action, v„ Sealy, a case which was specially prepared and submitted by ■etmsent of parties, and by direction of Mr Justice Johnston. Mr Travers appeared for plaintiff, and the AttorneyGeneral for defendant. The points argued were of a very complex character. The argument was concluded, and judgment reserved." We paid a brief visit yesterday evening to the Methodist Church bazaar now being held in the Masonic Hall. The room was decorated with the greatest taste, and the stock of articles ornamental, articles useful, and articles combining both these qualities, should be seen to be appreciated. Some of the specimens work of by the ladies of the congregation are remarkable for neat and diligent workmanship. Great energy has been displayed by the fair saleswomen, and their efforts, we are told, have been very successful; but there still remains an ample choice for discriminating selection. Some of the fancy goods are superb, and, contrary to the traditional practice of bazaars, the goods are offered at very reasonable prices.

In the Resident Magistrate's Court on Friday, Solomon Freedman sued Hirini, a native, for £l6 2s 6d, value of a horse, saddle, and bridle, alleged to be unlawfully detained. About the 12th or 13th ultimo, plaintiff was riding his horse near Pakipaki, when he was accosted by defendant and another native named Nikora. Hirini claimed the horse; plaintiff said it was his property—he had bought it of Sweeney. Some discussion took place, which was brought to a close by defendant jumping on the horse and riding it to the pa. According to plaintiff, he asked for the saddle and bridle, which defendant refused ; according to the defendant, they were offered to plaintiff, who refused to accept them without the horse. At any rate Hirini lost no time in handing them over to the Inspector of Police to be given to the owner. Prom the evidence adduced it appeared that Hirini was right as to the horse, which was named Kieti. It appears to have been rather an old animal, the native witnesses (who are never very precise as to lapse of time), giving its age at from twenty to thirty years. Its original owner, had long been dead, and the horse had been lost for three years. Plaintiff had bought it from Sweeney, who had bought it from Bartholomew Cheer, who had bought it from Bodaan for £2. The horse had been running a long time on Mr Gardiner's property, and the individual last-named, after advertizing that if not claimed within a certain date it would be sold to pay expenses, had done so, on behalf of Mr Gardiner.—The Court gave judgment for defendant with £1 Is costs; the police being instructed to hand over the saddle and bridle to plaintiff. It does not appear to be so well known as it should be that sales for trespass, unless conducted in the regular manner by means of the public pound, are illegal; that the owner is justified at any time in reclaiming his property, no matter into whose hands it may have passed; and that the original seller is liable to get into trouble.