Police Intelligence.

Lake Wakatip Mail, Volume I, Issue 32, 19 August 1863, Page 5

Police Intelligence.

POLICE COURT, QUEENSTOWN. (Before R. Beetham, Esq., R.M.) Monday, August 17. Cutting into a Tent.—Alexander Morrison was charged with cutting into a store at Maori Point, on the 14th inst. The constable in charge said that he arrested the prisoner on the 15th, on the information of George Anderson. The prosecutor stated that he was a storekeeper at Maori Point. On Friday night last, he shut up his store and went out for a short time to another place; when he returned, he found the prisoner cutting his tent. He was not drunk. The prisoner pleaded guilty to the charge, but urged drunkenness in extenuation. His Worship replied that drunkenness was no excuse for crime, and fined prisoner £lO, or one month's imprisonment. Keeping a Disorderly House. —James Monaghan was charged with permitting disorderly conduct at his house, the Invercargill Restaurant, in Ballarat-street. Defendant pleaded guilty. The prosecuting constable said that between 10 and 11 o'clock he heard a disturbance in defendant's house, and went in to caution him. Monaghan was drunk, and pulled one of his boarders out of his bunk. Sergeant Naden said it was not so much the lodgers as the landlord, who was constantly drunk and threatening to stab people. His Worship said it was necessary, for the benefit of the public, to put a stop to such disturbances, and he should fine defendant £3. Jones v. M'Kellar.—Charge of illegal detention of a wheelbarrow. Plaintiff stated that he went into partnership with defendant and some other men in mining on the Shotover, and bought some tools, among which were two wheelbarrows and a pump. The pump and one barrow were carried away by the flood. The flood dispersed the party, and plaintiff lent the barrow to M'Kellar; but when he sent up for it, he refused to return it, and had since sold it and kept the money. The tools had been purchased in plaintiff's name from Mr. Prince, who held him responsible for the monoj. The defendant said he had been authorised by the party to sell the tools saved, and called a witness, who corroborated his statement. The plaintiff being unable to produce any evidence to show that he, and not the party, was responsible for the tools, the case was dismissed without prejudice, his Worship saying that when he joinea in a claim and provided tools or money, he should obtain some acknowledgement. Carson v. Matthews.—No appearance. Murphy v. Smith.—No appearance of defendant. This was a claim for goods sold and delivered. Verdict for plaintiff. Jones v. Chambers. —No appearance. Turner v. Franklin.—Claim for LlB. No appearance of defendant. Verdict for plaintiff. Kirk v. Skelley.—Claim for jL2O, for services rendered, loss by breach of agreement, livery of a horse, and board. Plaintiff stated that he had been keeping a restaurant. About a month since, being at i Arthur's Point, and hearing that Skelley wanted j to dispose of his restaurant, he spoke to him, and finally agreed to take it, on the understanding that he was to board Skelley and his barmaid, and keep a fire in the parlour of the Shamrock Hotel. Skelley at that time was about to get I married, and as plaintiff was going to the Dun- ! stan to get some of his things up, Skelley commissioned him to bring up a barmaid for the hotel, and a clergyman to perform the ceremony. It was partly for expenses incurred on this trip that the present summons was taken out. When he returned, a quarrel had taken place between defendant and his intended, and he denied having told plaintiff to bring up a clergyman, at the same time telling him that the place had been I sold to Mr. Bond, and he would have to clear out He had also supplied Miss Wardell, the barmaid he had fetched from the Dunstan, with board; and had also supplied seven meals to defendant's order. He had only been in the restaurant a week, and his losses in bringing up his things had been heavy. He had agreed to take it for three or six months.

Thomas Skellev, sworn, deposed that Mr. Kirk had applied to him for his restaurant, wh\ch he agreed to let him have on his consenting to keep him and Miss Fitzroy in board. Told plaintiff he could not let him have the place for a week, when he said he was going to the Dunstan, and that would do very well. Never told him to bring up a clergyman, but did tell him to bring up a barmaid. Had a good business till plaintiff, by his continual drunkenness, drove everybody away. Was willing to pay for Miss Wardell's board, the seven meals ordered, and the livery of the horse. Had to pay for the packing of plaintiff's things from the Dunstan.

Matthew Burns, a laborer, said he had spoken to Skelley about the tables on the part of kirk, who was an old mate of his. Had seen plaintiff frequently under the influence of liquor. His Worship said there was no proof of any agreement about the restaurant*and should give \ a verdict for LI2 7s. I Hyde v. Chamberlain. —Claim of L2B for water ! supplied for mining purposes, reduced to L2O to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Resident ; Magistrate's Court. Mr. Campbeil appeared for the plaintiff. Mr. Hyde stated that he was part owner of Arthur's race, and now sought to recover for I water supplied to defendant and his party — i three days' sand-heads, at L 8 per day, and two days' sluice-heads, at L2 per day. 1 By* Defendant.—The water you had was not surplus water. We constructed the race for our I own claim, and we did not have more than we i were entitled to. Our claim is now worked out, 1 and we sell the water of our race. We are perI mitted to sell it. The water supplied to you i may have been used before by others, but not i more than twice. They paid us. S. C. Fraser, miner, lately working near Chamberlain, proved the use of the water by ! him. Witness paid L 8 a day for washing off ; sand, and Ll per day for sluicing. It was sometimes second water. Ryan said he was not connected with the race, but was present when defendant came to the hut to engage the water. It was about the j oth April. E. Meredith, miner, was one of the raceholders. Supplied the water to Chamberlain, turning it on to his claim personally. Defendant—Did lor my party ever agree to payfor the water ? Witness—Yes, certainly. The defendant denied the right of anyone to sell water, and said that Hyde and party having more water than they were entitled to, he took the surplus, as he contended he was entitled by the GoldfieldV Rules. He cited section iv., rules 12 and 20. There was no agreement proved between the race-holders and himself, and no books were produced. He admitted he had taken some water, but not so much as alleged, j They had only charged Fraser Ll per day, and j in his bill there was L2 for the same service. His Worship overruled the objection raised on the rules cited. Hugh M'Donough, miner, said he worked on Chamberlain's claim, but never knew Hyde or Meredith applied to for watir. Was not aware that they had to pay for it. ' His Worship considered that the fact of defendant having applied for the water was sufficient to establish his liability, but he could recover from his mates their share. As for the L2 overcharged, he was willing to take that off, but it would make no difference, as the debt had been reduced. The matter was one of the utmost importance to miners, and he looked upon it as a question of goods sold and delivered. Verdict for full amount, with costs; the court . allowing a fortnight's time. j