Untitled

Lake Wakatip Mail, Volume II, Issue 106, 4 May 1864, Page 4

The Banks have abolished in Queenstown their gold-brokers, aod are now purchasing the raw commodity direct from the producer. The gold-brokers feci very sore, in that u Othello's occupation's gone." Wt have nor h°.ird whether gold-brokers arc wanted in other Tlie uric- ••!' 1 is ~.,w £'i U.s. a decline ut liooi oa to ad jjtsi ua^cc.

• ! POLICE COURT, QUEENSTOWN. » | (Before Richmond Beetham, Esq., R.M.) } | Saturday, April 30. •! Vagrancy.—W. H. Quelch was charged with l having no lawful visible means of support. x Discharged with a caution to enter into the situ ition he said he was to get on Monday. " ! Drunk and t Disorderly.—Wm. Johnston 3 was fined in the usual penalty of 20s, Tuesday, 3rd May. i Rowley v. Brown—£3, for feeding and bring- } ing up a horse from the Dunstan. Mr Shepherd j for de endant. The defendant pleaded indebted, but claimed a set-off to the amount of £ls for damages sustained, which the defendant reduced " to £3, so as to avoid further delay. The plaint tiff denied ever having put on a pack-saddle or i ridden the horse coming up, and stated that when the hcrse was delivered to him its back was sore. 5 A witness named Marshall proved that the sore ; was an old one, and that a saddle should never f have been placed upon him, as he had lately been ' badly ridden. The defence was that the manager 5 at the Bank of New Zealand, Dunstan, had writ- • ten up, saying the horse's back was well. A . little scar existed when the horse left, but this | was not the spot injured. The horse was marked by a pack-saddle. Verdict for plaintiff. Hallenstein v. Mirfin.—£2o, for goods. Verdict by default. Cassius v. Smith.—£B 12s, for goods. Verdict by default. ; I Cassius v. Dale.—£B os, for goods. Verdict ( J by default. . I Kiley v. Flannery (£2O) and Kennedy Bros. v. ' ; ditto (£10). No appearance. ' | Wardell v. Mirfin.—£2o. The plaintiff had • ' entrusted the defendant, a gold broker, with a ; bank draft for £lO6, which the defendant had cashed, and paid him £45 on account, and he now reduced his claim of £6l to £2O, to get what • he could, without being compelled to uo to Dunedin to obtain redress. Verdict by default. Maiagban v. Robertson. —£10, on an 1.0.U, | Verdict by default. | Clark & Smith v. Griebel.—£B. No appear- ; i ance. Cassius v. Robertson.—£2o, for goods. Verdict by default. Arndt & Lewis v. Mirfin.— bl. 9s 6d. No appearance. M'Dougall v. Same.—2o/. No appearance. A re-hcaring was granted in the case of WarI del v. Mirfin, on the defendant stating he had j been taken by surprise, that his time had not 'agreed with the court's time, and that he had I also his books to produce, to rebut the evidence j he learned had been given. The plaintiff, sworn, repeated the evidence he j had given in the morning. By Mr Mirfin—l handed it to you in order to 1 get your name endorsed, so that it might be j cashed, as the manager of the Bank of New ZeaI land wanted the name of a person who knew me. i You asktd me to bring out a draft from Queens- | town. Was not aware whether you could issue a draft or not. Re-examined—Got a 20?. draft on England, on account, and left the balance because of the time it would take to cish the draft in Dunedin. Mr. Mirfin deposed that the plaintiff waited 1 upon him with a deposit receipt, stating that the ! Bank wanted someone to guarantee it before they ' could let him have any money. This was the ! 2nd November. Did so on the condition that the pldntiff gave him some security. The plaintiff said he would leave a balance of monty. Next day told him that he had obtained a draft, and handed over one for 20/., and the balance of the 106/., less the bank charges for collection. Plaintiff then Lft 25/., as security that the draft would be correct. On the Bth December plaintiff called and asked if the draft for 106/. was correct. Replied yes, and told him the money left he might have whenever he liked. He received 10/. on the 18th December; on the 2nd February called again and got £lO, and on the Ist March gave him the balance, 5/. Plaintiff never said anything to him until a few days ago about his having more money to pay him. By Mr Shepherd—The reason he only kept back 25/. was because he knew the plaintiff well and deemed that sufficient security. Did not take any receipt when he handed over the large sum. Took the smaller receipt because he drew money by degrees, and it had been a long time in his possession. The reason that November 30th is entered after January 24th in the leaves of the book pro iuced is because I entered those accounts not in way. Sometimes I entered our accounts in the middle or end of the book, and you will see it is so on examination. Plaintiff recalled—When I first saw Mr Mirfin he told me had got the order, but he never said anything about the balance of money, but that the deposit receipt must go to town to be cashed. Never received any money, wid swear it, positively. Lived on 11/. I had in my possession. Lived soberly and could not have spent the 61/. Had been to the Taieri. Wanted the money when he asked for the first £lO. I Wanted money when the second £lO was paid. Went for the £5 to pay for tools. The defendant never said that the money was done then. Always thought the money was in the Bank of New Zealand. The evidence given by the defendant was quite false. To defendant—The book produced is not the one I wrote in. Mr Beetham—This is a case that has to be decided upon by the probabilities. The evidence of one side is flatly coLtradicted by the other. The defendant, after getting the mmcy from the ! bank, says lie took no receipt for tho lar^ 1 .-urn, en.l tia:t .i second fcr.iir-Jaciloii t<;r smaller aur-uuts ' wao entered into in which he took receipts; and

| upon this point the evidence was strongly against the defendant; but, on the other hand, it | seemed most strange that an amount of £4 should jbe abandoned to recover £2O. A? the probabili- ' ties were so strong on each side I do not consider myself justified in giving a verdict upon the evidence produced. I shall therefore dismiss the case without prejudice, and recommend it be brought before the Supreme Court. I Mr Shepherd—This will entail a delay of five : months, and the defendant is leaving the province.

RESIDENCE OF JUDGE CHAPMAN. Meeting at the 25-mile Creek. I, James Weipers, Chairman of a public meeting held this day at the 25-mile Creek, Lake I Wakatip, declare the following resolutions were : unanimously passed by the miners working and residing in the district. April 25, 1864. 1. " That this meeting, having heard the decision of the Attorney-General in appointing Judge Chapman to reside at Dunedin, are indignant at such decision. The various promises the Government have made to the Lake district have never been performed, and this meeting is of opinion ! the apathy hitherto displayed towards this dis- | trict is injurious to the commercial and mining interests." 2. ''That this meeting approves of the action taken in the matter of a gaol and Supreme Court established at Queenstown, and pledges itself to support the movement. If the Supreme Court j is established at the Dunstan, it will- be equally 1 as disadvantageous to the Wakatip district as ; before." Head of the Lake. I, the undersigned, Chairmau of a public meeti ing held this day (24th April) at the Head of Lake Wakatip, do hereby certify that such meetI ing was numerously attended by the miners, &c, j of the place, and the following resolutions were unanimously agreed to. April 24, 1864. C. C. Jervis. 1. u That this meeting approves and endorses the action taken to secure the building of a gaol and a sitting of the Supreme Court at Queenstown. It has every confidence in the permanence of the district, and pledges itself to support the movement." 2. " That this meeting is of opinion the Government have sadly underrated the importance lof the Wakatip district. If the many promises made by the Government be not fulfilled, and a Supreme Court established at Queeustown, it will be an insult to the inhabitants." 3. " That this meeting desires to express its thanks to the Queenstown Improvement Committee for the action they have taken in the matter of a gaol and Supreme Court sittings in Queenstown, and trusts they will urge the same without ceasing, and we will support the same."