RESIDENT MAGISTRATES'COURT.

Inangahua Times, Volume IV, Issue 67, 12 September 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Tuesday, September 11, 1877. [Before Edwaud Shaw, Esq., R.M.] INSCIiTINa AND. THREATENING lANGXIAG-E. Thomas Jolliffe was charged upon the information of Samuel GKlmer with using insulting and threatening language in a public place at.Keefton, whereby a breach of the peabeniay have', beep occasioned. ; Mr £itit' appeared for'tha prosecutor, and Mr Guinness and Mr Staite appea>ed for the defence. Mr Pitt having briefly opened the case, called the following evidence :— Samuel Gilmer— Jolliffe said to Fama "You are the next h . man that Gilmer will have up for robbery." He said to me, " that is the b —^— man standing at the door that I would arrest for stealing the money." There was nobody standing al the door but me. The people all turned their heads and looked at me, I did not knock him down. I was inclined to do so, but thought I would take another course. Cross-examined— He waa about fire yards off. I wan the only person standing at the door at the time. I was looking into the street. The people were talking amongst themselves. Jolliffe was walk-, ing round, and the people were talking in clusters. He was not joking. I paid no attention. I heard the people talking. I took notice of what Jolliffe said, because ha turned round. I swear he was not laughing when he turned towards me. Very. likelyrthe .District Court was sitting . attheitime.' I must have just come out of the Court. -I don't know whether people talk ; very low ah the door of the Court. Jolliffe did' not talk low. lie had been speaking to Fama. He said, " That's the b iniati." T took the words to apply to me. I w»is the only man standing at the door, and assumed the words to apply to me. A good deal of lauebter occurred. I did not hang down my head or hang it up at! the, remark. The remark did not trouble me very much. 1 walked away directly after. I passed through the crowd. I did not attempt to strike him. He-examined— T saw Mr Pitt directly after ami reported the circumstance, and was advised by him-.-fly the Court— Defendant wa< standing five yards off', and when he made tlw* remark he pointed his hnnri at me. I can't; be mistaken as to his referring to me. The meaning I attach to the words " they did not concern me," was that hud it been in any other part of ti.e to.vn I might have committed a breach of tne peace, and I wanted to pass it over quietly. . . , , Vincent Fama— l am cook in Uilmer s employ. ■ I remember last Saturday morning. The Magistrate's Court was then being held in the Survey Office. I «*as a witness with Mr Gilmer in the case then being heard. A good few people- were standing about. I was standing outside the Court-house door, and Pmith and Jolliffe were standing close together, and Mr S. Gilmer was standing on, the doorway. Jolliffe said; "if f think rightly, to me, " You will be next one that will be taken up after. Harry," but he said '< if I tell you the right one by appearance, I would take the man at'the doorstep.", He was alluding to the money which had been lost. Cross-examined — The oase had been called on and had been adjourned until 3 o'clock. This took place after the adjournment. I heard what Jolliffe said. I was Standing about six yards off Mr Gilmer, and Jolliffe was standing two or three yards further off. , There was some , joking going on. Mr Gilmer put his hand to his nose, but' said nothing, I did not hear Mr Jolliffe swear. I could not swear that he said the word b — — — . Gilmer never jnoved. ' Joßiffe said ",by 'appearanpe pf'flie three,.!.. would t£ke the, man.at,t)ie t d'o.pr step.'; ",^SP Me'r&ferred to ; "< pi the fee %he meant,ejther Gilmo.r* , myself* oriS:m|th.v.,He,did o s,ay,' < judging i . from appe&rances.!' >■•*..-.•< ■ . : <.i.;jjy the. Court— Jolliffe laughed at the same time when h« used the language. He said it in a chaffing sort of way. ! He smiled at the time. George- Bull — I am postmaster at Reefton. I was standing in front of the Court-house at about 2 o'clock on Monday last. It was just after the Magistrate's. Court adjourned. I saw' Jolliffe and Gilmer in front of the CqurMibuse. ' I heard Jolliffe say tliat Smith' was not guilty, and that it was ridiculous to suppose he was, and that to;judge,,by appearances the man who. was standing ou the. doorstep was. By the Court— Mr Gilmer was the only man standing on the doorstep, ... ■ ' Examination continued— <lt was simply a remark. ;< . ; »i, . < ■ Cross-examined ■■*- There might haye 1 'been some laughing going '6ni I- Was. "Hot taking much notitio. People we'rte dis-. cussing, the case., I did' not take much , notice', until I. heard .that retuarkV' Hj e .'^ .upt.tnake use of any'iflisuUihg P r , threatening language. I . thought ', / the'yr l e i mjiijk..hs made was very .foolish. Dfm'6^ know whether Hesbp-was standing alongside the doorstep. Gilmer did Qot smile at all at the remark. I fancy he said " judging by appearances. Joliiffe did not point to Gilmer nor swear at him. By the Court: I did not hear the word "bloody '•' used at all. ' William Hugh honest Jj recollect , last Saturday morning. The District' Court sac in : tins Court, and the Magistrate sat in (Vie Survey Office. After the adjournment of the latter I was standing outside the Court. Mr Gilmer was standing ou the doorstep, and Jolliffe said to Smith. •' Harry you dou't look like a. thief. If I

were to suspect anybody it would be the manon the doorstep." Fama was there, and several others also. I could not say whether the remark called immediate attention. I turned at once, and looked nt Mr Gilmer. I took it to apply to Mr Gilmer. I could not see much wit in the remark. By the Bench—l don't think it was said in a jocular way, and yet I don't think it was made viciously. It was made without any particular emphasis. Cross-examined— That was the very remark I heard Jolliffe make use of. I have an impression that he said some» thing about " appearances," but could not swear. Nobody in the group in which I was standing laughed at the remark. I could not swear that • Jolliffe did not laugh. Could not swear whether IJeslop was there. Gilmer walked away soon afler the remark was made. I did "not hear him swear at Gilmer. I did sot hear any swearing. I was close enough to hear all that was said. I did not see Jolliffe noint at Gilmer. I was looking at Jolliffe. He did not point at Gilmer when he made the rejiark. John Hoge— l am manager for Mr Masters in this town. I was standing outside the Court House on Faturdav morning, and saw Gilmer and Jolliffe there. Gilmer was standing on the door step. Jolliffe said, " Harry you do not look yery like a thief." Half a minute elapsed, and I then heard Jolliffe say, " If there is any one I suspect, it is the man on the doorstep." I looked round and saw Gilmer on the doorstep. I could not tell whether it was in a jocular way. It attracted my attention. Cross-examined— The word " appear- » ances " may have been used. Jolliffe did not say what be suspected him of. I heard somebody laughing. Jolliffe did not swear when he made use of the expression. I will swear that I did not hear Joliiffe say " that's the b man." I did not see Jolliffe point his hand at Gilmer. I think he had his hands in his ■ pockets.. „..«• This closed the case for the plaintiff. Mr Guinness raised three objections to the wording of the information, which however the Court overruled. Mr Guinness then commented upon the evidence, and said that while his client was prepared to admit having used some words, ho totally denied any iutention to insult or hurt the feelings of the informant. He called Thomas Jolliffo— l am an hotelkeeper in Reefton. I l^ve no illfeoling or bad friendship towards Mr Gilmer.. Never had a dipute with him in my life. I was standine outskle the Tourt on Saturday last Fama and Smith were talking together, 1 said to Fama " very likely you will be the nesfc to, be taken up, and induing by appe.irnnces I should suspect "the'man on the doorstep." I never in tended fco insult Mr Gilmer, I never insulted a man in my life nor was in Court for doing- so. We were all speaking on the same subject, and I happened to. talk louder than the others. By the Court— What induced me to make the rpnurir was. that Smith was in my employ for twelve months, and I knpw rotliin-r o"f Mr Gilme* and thoi's why I used thY remark. If I he- lansn««e made n<e of is thought capnble.oftlie.eoiish'uetinn pur upon it by t<e informant lam nrepnred to npolociw. I don't wisli lo hurt his Minus in nnywiy. Attlrsslaaeofthe i-nse ll'* Vvorshtp said tint wit Lout washing <» di-tate tuiy particular coursn to counsel on eilliersidelie thought the case had reached tliat Btn<™ when it oould be easily wlLled*. Mr Pitt said that on behalf ot the in-, formant he wis willing to accept the apology tendered, and would ask foz no other expenses than the mere costs ot Court. The information was then withdrawn, defendant agreeing to pay £1 Us costs of , Court. BA.TTK OP NEW ZEA.LA.IH> V. WLYDE. This was an action to recover from defendant the cum of £51, being the amount of moneys advanced by plaintiffs to defendant upon security, wbbh subsequently turnedioufc to be valueless. ' The 'case Had been partly gone into at a , previon3 sitting of the Court. Defendant, who resides at Kumara, had his evidence taken before the Magistrate, and it was read over. Mr Pitt appeared for the plaintiffs, and; Mr Guinness for tbe defendants. A. D. Bavfeild— l produce the shareregister of the Durham Coal Company. The Company has ceased operation*. I do not remember upon what basis the shares in the new Company were taken upt As far as I recollect the shares were not allotted pro rata to fhc old shareholders. Some of the old shareholders received shares upon that basis. Davies was secretary o I the old Company. Mr ' Campbell was a director of the new Com--1 'panyV'{Hle*held 200 shares. I held 200 'and ''EbwlandS6"n '-190 shares. I don't think Eowlandson was a shareholder in the old Com r any." Nor caa I say whether Mr Campbell was. There was no special arrangement between the old ard new 1 Companies. Some of the old shareholders took shares in the new Company. By .the, Court —The shareholders m the old Company had no privilege in the !new Company over the general public. I was a shareholder in my own right, but I subsequently transferred my shares to the bank as security for advances. ■''Gulline was the promoter of the Company. The new Company paid Gulline in ' cash the exact sum given by him for the mine at "auction. I could not say what the market value of shares in the new Company was* lam not aware that Mr Wylde sold his shares to Mr Campbell. I do not know whether Mr Wylde was 'asked to take shares in the new Company. Gulline. got the 'shareholders m the new Company. It was not understood by me that Gulline bought for the Company. I -thought, he bought the mine bona fide oh his o,wn/ account. The shareholders in the old Company were tke shareholders in the. new Company, i By the Court — As, a large shareholder in the old concern, I think I was not understood by the old shareholders that they would receive any preference in : taking up shares in the. new Company. This closed iihe case, for the defendant.' , . The following evidences was. called m rebuttal of portions, of the. evidence given, by defendant : — 11. E. G-ulline — I reside in Reefton. I know the coal mine in question. It is now my property. I recollect its. beirur put up to auction under bill of sale. It is j about 12 months ago. The property was,

sold to me absolutely, und I paid for it in two cheques of £250 each. The shares in the Company were not diftrjlmted pro rata amongst the holders in th£g}d concerned. I was to hare receive 1 £800 from the new Company, but tie, property, I received nothing, and the property re« verted to me. 1 distinctly deny that there was any understanding amongst the old shareholders that I should-.Jbby the property on there behalf. ; "*-■" By the Bench— l know nothing about Mr Wylps shares. '-. Louis Davis— l am a sharebroker living in Keefton. I was at one time secretary of the Reefton Coal Company. James I 4 Wylde was a shareholder in that Com- \ pany. At the time the Company ceased to exist he held 165 shares. I produce transfer from Wylde to Campbell. I could not saw how the transfer came into my hands. The transfer was never-passed through the books. My belief is that the transfer was simply lodged in the office, but I cannot say of my own knowledge. The Company ceased operations in either April or May 1876. The transfer is dated March of that year. From the fact / of the transfer not being put through the books, I conclude that it was merely left at the office ■ . Cross-examined — When- the meeting was called to form the new Company those present were s\ske& to accept share* in the venture. Wo met at Mr Gulline's request. The new Company was registered under the Joint Stock Act. Mr Wylde had no shares in the new Company. Mr Campbell held 2SS shares in the old Company. Bayfeild ceased to be a shareholder on the 22nd December 1875 and then he becime a shareholder from Mr D'Alton in February, and transferred them back to D'Alton on May 12th. Wylde transferred 150 shares to Mr Campbell. By the Court— l was a holder m boMi ventures. It was an understood thing amongst the old shareholders that Gulline should purchase the property and form a new Company. I heard Mr'Guk line's evidence. There was no arrangement that such should be the case. There was a tacit understanding that it should bo so. It was understool that if the mine was bought the old shareholders would go into ife again. It arranged that Mr Gulline should bid. We did not guarntee him any money. The amount the new company was to pay was about ■ £1,000, The shareholders ultimately drew out of it, the mine reverted to Gulline Gulline was not bound to invite all the old shareholders to join the new undertaking. He did not invite all the old shareholders— only a few of the largest —about a fifth in number. I have beard the evidence read of James Wylde. luo fact that Mr Wylde was^not^ asked to become a shareholder in the new Company is not conclusive evidence that he was not a shareholder in the old ComCoiin Campbell, recalled— l have heard the evidence of Mr Wylde read. 'A hat portion referring to his having sold and transferred his shares to me is totally uutrne. Bis positively untrue that he absolutely sold th* shires' to the Bank. His, shares were taken a* security only. The. snle to Gulline, so far a* I know, whs absolute. It U a!*' untrue that at the time he drew out the iuinshr he asked me tor the osnet sum «>f his overdmft, in opder that he might put it in Ihe transfer as the purchase money. 1 s took the shares, as security lor the account he owed tbe bank. . The transtciis dated 9th Marclw After lhat 1 ndwnnced him £40. He otireed for aii overdraft of £50, and received iilim befnne the transfer was signed. ■ Hi»T statement that it was understood between S3 that bis transfer was to clear off- his liability with the bank is untrue. I o&red to. let him have the shares back if he would pay the debt and calls.. Crosssexammed^.Tbe transfer is dated theday ft was signed. %t was signed in the back parloc I proyided the stamp. 'Never told him. that the amount of his indebtedness could not be inserted in tbe transfer, because the stamp was only for one shilling. This was the first transaction the, bank bad with, defendant. The srlvnnoo of £l(fc was made at the time tli<» transfer was signed. Ii took, the transfer to Mi- D.itim. I hM«i no. shams in the Comply l>eioujci\i.j fc> mj-^lf. T'lyM shares from BayfeiM. I toltl Gulline that I held a lien over the shares-held by Wylde. I therefore took shares in- tin new Company ia lieu thereof. I do not now hold the shares. I pave them up. The Company hold no property now. 1 demanded ths money from, Wylde before he left Reefton. '' • The case was adjourned till tomorrow,

I ~ — "