RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, BLENHEIM.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume II, Issue 112, 16 April 1880, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, BLENHEIM.

Wednesday, Aitjl 14tit. (Before H. Mclntire, Esq., R.M.] F. JiE AMS LEY V. V. O’SULLIVAN. This was an action to recover the sum of £49 on a dishonored promissory note. Mr McNab appeared for plaintiff and Mr Sinclair for defendant, the defence being that this was a gambling transaction. • F. Beamsley, earpenter, Spring Creek, deposed : —I remember the 2Sth February, 1877. Patrick O’Sullivan came to me that day about 10 o’clock at Bush’s Hotel. He said he wanted to borrow £4O or £SO. Witness declined to lend it. He asked him again later in the day and witness lent him £3O in cash and paid £lO to Mr Cundy at his request. He gave witness a document which witness said was no good. He replied, “ If it’s no good I’ll give you another.” Went to Mr Holmes office with Mr O’Sullivan, who filled up mother document and signed it. The consideration for the hill was the £3O ; d the £lO. Witness presented the biliwnen due to defendant, who said he’d got no money, and at his request the bill was held over. Witness ha 3 not been paid a ahifiing on the bill (produced.)

By Mr Sinclair The first bill was signed at Gundy's Hotel. The defendant was not gambling with moon the day the money was lent. Had been gambling with him the night before and had won a little. There was a dispute about a loaded die. I did not win ,£IOO from O’Sullivan that night. I might have won £SO or £OO. Wo were playing from 5 o’clock in the evening until about 10 o’clock. _ Stevens was in the room but was not playing. YY hen we left the table O’Sullivan owed me no money. We had been playing at “ Yankee grab ” with dice for bank notes. I did riot win a cheque of Gundy’s for £lO from O’Sullivan. When we left oil' lie said be was “cleaned out.” Did not have another gambling bout next morning from about 0 o’clock till noon. I was at work that day. I. will swear that loaded dice were net used. It was MoGerkensliaw who was throwing when O’Sullivan picked up a die and said it was loaded. I did not say I was in partnership with Stevens and McGerkenshaw and had to divide the spoil. I gave him £lO hack and told him to leave off gambling. I have never won £5 from him since the hill was given. I never told O’Sullivan that I had destroyed the hill. When he asked me to lend him the money lie said lie was “ cracked up ” and was in difficulties. Patrick O’Sullivan, the defendant, said the money was lent on the morning of the 2Sth February at Cmuly’s Hotel. The previous day witness drew £(l6 out of the Bank. Plaintiff and witness played that evening and plaintiff won it all. YY r itncss had £0 besides. Next morning witness went to him about 10 o’clock at the Bainhow Hotel and said, “You might as well have this £8 along with the rest you won last night.” Bearnsley said. “We’ll go up-stairs and get the dice.” We went upstairs and it was not long before lie won the £B. YY 7 itness then asked Bearnsley to lend him £4O which lie agreed to, and took a bill out of his box which witness filled up and they subsequently went with it to Holmes’ office. Holmes said it was not •right and it was torn np, and another was given for it (produced.) £3O was paid in hank notes. Gundy had lent witness £lO by cheque the night before, which Beamsley sain ho would pay. Wo then began playing “Yankee grab” and played for about an hour, during which time witness lost £4O. Bearnsley bet two to one on every throw and won always. Towards the end, when witness was nearly “cleaned out,” witness picked up a loaded die and said, “Is this the way you win all my money? He said, “The die does not belong to me but to McGerkenshaw.” Witness said, “ You ought to pay hack what you’ve won,” He gave me £2 hack and said he'd give me all hack only he’d shared the money with Stevens and McGerkensliaw. ITe said he would destroy the bill ami asked mo to say nothing about the loaded die.

By Mr McNab—l was at this time in the Police Force. I did not report it to the Inspector; lie was aware of it. Stevens and McGerkenshaw were warned to “ clear out,” and did so. Bearnsley was not told to clear out; lie went to work. The others never did any work. I don’t remember any quarrel with Bearnsley about a £5 note. He did not accuse me of stealing a note —a National Bank note —I never stole anything. I never took a hag belonging to Hebberley, and planted it near the Omaka bridge. I was never stripped to my boots and stockings at the Commercial Hotel, and searched, being accused of stealing £3 from the bar. The story is not true. 1 have gambled with you for drinks before now. I never did so with Mr Sinclair. I showed the loaded die to Stevens on the Omaka bridge. As I held it in my hand, he snatched it away and threw it into the river.

The R.M. said it was for the Court to say whether lie was to believe plaintiff's or defendant’s version of the transaction. If the the defendant’s version were true he was entit'ed to a verdict.

The learned counsel on cither side having addressed the the Court on behalf of their respective clients, The R.M. in giving judgment said the ease was a very unsatisfactory one. There was a regular conflict of evidence between plaintiff and defendant, hut for the staleness of the demand lie should say that the balance of testimony was in favor of plaintiff, hut the staleness of the note itself combined with the surrounding circumstances of the case, and theundoubted fact that the parties appeared to have been in an atmosphere of gambling at the time of the transaction, placed the Court in such a position that any judgment must he to some extent unsatisfactory, Mr Sinclair said the costs would he some what heavy. His client had been summoned over from "Wellington, and the costs and expenses amounted to £S 9s Gd. Mr MoNab asked the Court to give a verdict for defendant, instead of non-suiting plaintiff, and applied for a re-hearing of the ease on the ground that he could bring evidence to contradict defendant’s testimony on several material points. Until coming into Court that day he had not been aware what the defence was. He paid into Court £9 subject to adjustment of costs.

Mr Sinclair said it would be necessary, if a re hearing were granted, to call Mr H. Candy, and it might take some time to get him here, as his address was not precisely known.

After some discussion as to the date of re hearing, -it was agreed that the case should be reheard on the 25th May.