THE COURTS.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume II, Issue 163, 12 October 1880, Page 3

THE COURTS.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT. i Blenheim, October Utii. (Before IT. Mclntire, Esq., R.M]. ALLEGED IXDKCNCY. Eugenie Hickey was charged under the Vagrant Act by Catharine Barry with an offence against decency, alleged to have been commited in Redwood street on the sth inst. Defendant asked for an adjournent until next day in the absence of Mr McXab, but prosecutrix objected to any postponement, and the case was proceeded with. Mrs Barry stated that she saw Hickey on the day in question on premises occupied by herself and her husband, and that lie behaved improperly. Defendant denied that there had been any impropriety in his conduct whatever. Prosecutrix’s daughter, a girl of about 11 years of age, was called to corroborate the mother’s "statement, which she did as to the leading features of the case. Defendant, who said the case was trumped up against him by Mr Barry and herdaughter, called his wife, who said she was in her husband’s company on the morning in question, except for a very short time. She saw no such offence committed by her husband as was stated, nor anthing of the kind. Tier husband might have had a glass or two beer that morning, but he was not drunk. The R.M. said it did not appear from the evidence that the facts supported the information as laid under the particular section of the Act, but there was sufficient to show that the defendant had acted very improperly. The case would be dismissed with a caution to defendant to be more careful as to his conduct in future, \ .1 .'iGi&hqcrfi SBTr'iMliliJ .3

c. STAGti ?: L WILSON. This was a claim for L 2 -Vs- Pi fwboots. No defence was offered and plaintiff n’a'mg proved the debt, obtained judgment fertile rhiMhii cUimed arid costs. i.rrcrfMif* AW r. >*• OAititor.i.. This was a claim fof A; Or goods sold and delivered. There was no defence',- th*d pidgin cut was given for the amount claimed rtud J ; HAMf'm'Vii V. A. CASEY. This was an ac’fitfri fi* w«w»vcr the sum of L!) Gs fnl for wages, etc. , Defendant put in a set off for o'rMi !ent, beer sold, payment of passage from Iselson, etc., amounting to L 7 9s 3d. i ■ Mr Rogers appeared in support of tne claim, and Mr .Sinclair for the defendant. Plaintiff disputed sonic items of the set-off, one of Which was for beer L 3 17s, alleged to have been supplied at intervals extciidin«- over a period of six mouths. The defendant alleged that plaintiff was under the influence of liquor throughout the time'he was at Mr Casey’s Hotel, and that his services' .ns cook were useless, lie was, therefore, charged itf? board and lodging. The amount of beer charged for was duly supplied to him at intervals during'.?'!?! months, as stated in the bill of particulars. This statement was denied by plaintiff, who skid fie was never so far under the influence of liquor as to be unable to do his work. He complained that after he left Mr Casey’s, and had been working flt Woodburn, he came into town, and went to Mr Casey’s to get a drink and to pay 3s Gd, for which he tendered a cheque for L 7, which Mr Casey stuck to. This cheque Mr Casey said he detained until he was paid what was paid to him. Mr Casey and dob Aldridge were called for the defence, and stated that plaintiff was unable to do his work as cook, as lie was nearly always drunk. He used to go down town to get drink. The learned counsel on either side having addressed the Court on behalf of their respective clients, the R.M. gave judgment for plaintiff for 19s and costs L2 2s. TAIX V. COLLINS. This was a judgment summons action for L 5 13s. ' ' The case, has been before the Court on several previous occasions and adjourned. Mr Rogers appeared for plaintiff and stated that some question had arisen as to tender of payment of defendant's expenses. He (Mr Rogers) did not know of any obligation that was cast upon plaintiff to tender to defendant any expenses. The Resident Magistrate said this appeared to be an undisputed case and that plaintiff was not hound to prove a tender of expenses. Mr Rogers said there was nothing to prevent defendant having his evidence taken at Timaru, where he resided He could also show by evidence that defendant was not in the position of ail absolute pauper without means.

The defendant did not appear either in person or by counsel hut wrote to the Court to say that his expennes had not been tendered.

The Court ruled that the tender of de fendant’s expenses was not a condition pre cedent.

The plaintiff’, Mr Tait, stated that the debt was for advertising in the Maki.p.onotrint Times, and that no portion of the amount, for •which lie had recovered judgment two months ago, had been paid. The defendant, according to the Trade Protection Circular, had lately executed a bill of sale over a considerable amount of property. He had written to the witness to say that he had got no property, as witness could see by looking at the Gazette, and that he had been ruined by Blenheim rogues. Witness believes defendant lias the means to pay the debt if he liked. Mr Rogers submitted that there was sufficient evidence to warrant the Court in making an order against the judgment debtor. 'Phe Court made an order calling on defendant to pay at the expiration of one month, or in default one month’s imprisonment. A. HOC!EIIS V. Cl. CJII3SON-. This was a claim for L 7 7s 4d, for professional services, and on the application of plaintiff was adjourned for a ■week. There were two or three other small debt cases, which were settled out of Court, RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Pictox, Monday, October 11, [Before J. Allen, Esq., R.M.] LAMBERT V. KENNY (CAPTAIN COMMANDING I’ICTOX RANGERS.) Mr McXab appeared for plaintiff, and in opening the case said be was instructed to state that no complaint was made by the plaintiff against Captain Kenny personally, Lieut. Harris, his loann tarn. s, or the Company as a body, but the action had merely been forced upon the plaintiff by the course taken by Sub-Lieut. Philpotts and another subordinate officer. In trying to settle the case amicably Captain Kenny had treated both himself and the plaintiff most courteously : the payment into Court was an admission of everything, and ho would ask for costs of the day. S. P. McXab deposed as to service of notice to produce documents, and that a cheque for LIS 14s 3d was tendered by Sergeant Blizzard to plaintiff, the tender being refused. \V. H. Lambert deposed as to the debt being incurred at the late ball. [Here Captain Kenny admitted that the debt was owing, the money being paid into Court : all they objected to was costs.] There had been a tender of Ll 5 which he refused : there was a subsequent tender of LIS 14s 3d by cheque, which he refused. On the following day he told Lieut. Harris, who commanded in Captain Kenny’s absence, that cash would be accepted. Harris told him Philpotts and Blizzard would not part with the cheque until it went to the Finance Committee. He then took action, having waited for a settlement three months. S. Harris, Captain of Cadets and Lieut, of the Picton Rangers, corroborated Mr Lambert’s evidence and that there was no feeling as between himself and plaintiff. Captain Kenny contended that costs should not be allowed and said Sub-Lieut. Philpotts wished to make a statement. The Resident Magistrate said Mr Philpotts could give evidence but not make a statement ; the proper place to air his grievances was the columns of a newspaper. ill- McXab “He has already been there, your Worship.” Mr Philpotts : —“No.” His Worship, after commenting somewhat severely on the reference to the Finance Committee, gave judgment for LIS 14s 3d (paid into Court), and L 4 5s costs.