Resident magistrate's Court.

Marlborough Express, Volume IV, Issue 197, 2 October 1869, Page 5

Resident magistrate's Court.

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 20th. [Before S. L. Muller, Esq., R.M.] MULLKNDER V. WARREN. Mr. Nelson for George Mullender, a laborer, claimed £l4 ss. for services performed by himself and a female who passed as his wife. Mr. Pitt, for the defendant, contended that plaintiff had no claim, for reasons stated. The Bench gave a nonsuit, each party to pay their own costs. Mr. PUt staled that defendant was still willing to pay the amount he considered justly owing by the plaintiff, and which had been previously tendered to him. V. HEWITT V. MONRO BROS. Mr. Nelson, for plaintiff, stated that he had served Mr. Pitt, as Messrs. Monro Bros.' solicitor, with notice that he had withdrawn the case, the day after the summons was served. Mr. Pitt now applied for defendant’s expenses, as he hud come down on the previous Saturday for the purpose of instructing him. The Bench considered the notice of withdrawal ought to be served at defendant’s residence, and that it ought to have been delivered on Friday.

Mr- Nelson said it was a preposterous thinff to claim three days’ expenses for coming 16 miles. The Bench allowed one day and mileage, observing that cases were eaten up with costs, and that the Court was made an instrument of punishment in many cases. H e would allow £1 for witness, 2ls. professional costs, and 16s. mileage. SKLMES V. WITHEY. Mr Nelson, for plaintiff, claimed £3, value of a heifer taken, driven away, and lost by defendant while taking u mob to the Pound, and £l for expenses in seeking it. James Selmes, farmer. Spring Creek, deposed that he had a herd of 18 cattle on his land at 10 a.m on August 3rd. At night he fetched 17 head from Shepherd’s, where they had been impounded. Defendant’s land was half-a mile from his, and the cattle were turned out on a place opposite Dodson’s. In the drove was a red and white spotted heifer, a year old. Shepherd had told him that 18 head had been brought, but one had broken away, adding there were quite enough for him to pay for. By Mr. Pitt: It was a rainy day; 18 were turned out, but only took 17 out of the Pound. He was told by a parly that he saw 18 going. George Crowdiss, servant to plaintiff, corroborated his evidence, adding that he had spent two days since in seeking the missing animal. John Shepherd, Poundkeeper, deposed that defendant’s servant brought 17 head about three-quarters of an hour before dark. He saw 4 or 5 others outside ; the driver seemed to be cutting out neighbors’ cattle, among which were some of Kennedy’s, with one of which there seemed to be a spotted one. When plaintiff came he told him there were more outside, but did not tell him there was one they could not get in. F. Busch, farmer, saw Woolley driving 17 or 18 to the Pound, and saw the missing one among them. George Woolley deposed that he only took 17 head ; a lot more joined them at the sand-hills, but were cut out at the gate. He only put those in the Pound which were on the land, and had often driven them off before ; they were all on the paddock, among the wheat. Defendant told him to take a horse and drive them to the Pound. It was after passing Busch that the others joined. The Bench thought there was a preponderance of evidence for the plaintiff, and gave judgment for the sum claimed, with £3 7s. costs. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27th. [Before S. L. Muller, Esq., R.M., and His Worship the Mayor.] DRUNKENNESS. Robert Barrett was fined ss, with 3s. costs, for being drunk. VAGRANCY. Jeremiah Griffin was charged, under the Vagrancy Act, with having no visible or lawful means of support. Inspector ILmerson stated that the prisoner had been to one of the out stations of A. P. Seymour, Esq., (Meadowbank), and during the absence of Mr. Herd, the manager, he broke open boxes and drawers, emptied and destroyed the contents, burnt papers, &c. The prisoner, having nothing to say for himself, was committed to jail with hard labor for three months. PORKISS V. MONRO BROS, This was a claim to recover 15s. for attending the Court as a witness in the case against Ritchings. Mr. Pitt for defendants admitted all the facts, the question being whether plaintiff wasentitled to recover from the defendants or the Colonial Secretary. He contended that his clients could not be held liable, and stated that he never knew such a case arise before. There would»'be no prosecutors if the consequences of failure bung over his head, even if he saw a theft committed. It was clearly the duty of the Government to pay these expenses. In the case of the Maungatapu murders, the expenses amounting to more than £IOOO, were paid by the Provincial Government. The ends of justice would be frequently defeated if the prosecutor was liable to pay them. He then quoted largely from •'Taylor on Evidence” to prove that the costs whether a case resulted in a committal or not, should be defrayed by the General Government. The Chairman said that he had never known a similar case, and at the time the case was heard was of opinion that the party setting the law in motion had to pay all expenses, hut after reading a variety of authorities, lie found that where a committal took place, a certificate of costs was given for the approval of the Judge, but no means were provided in the case of the

prosecution failing, and the prisoners not convicted. He should therefore give a judgment for the defendants. On Mr. Pitt applying for costs, Mr. Purkiss urged that it was by no fault of his that this case arose, and considered justice would be met by each party paying his own expenses. The Court allowed professional fees, at the same time regretting that there was no other alternative. DAVIS AND CAMPBELL. V. WELLS. This was a claim to recover a balance £6l is. due to plaintiffs for cutting timber in the bush. Mr. Pitt, for plaintiff, stated the case, from which it appeared that Davis and Co. made a contract to cut timber for him in the bush near Havelock, but were unable to carry it out by default of the defendant in not rafting the timber, and l»y his nonpayment of an agreed-upon monthly payment. A plaint putin for lump deliveries was objected to by Mr. Nelson, who wished for a particular statement of dales and quantities of logs delivered. He also objected to an agreement being put in by the plaintiffs as being unstamped, whereupon it was withdrawn, and at a later period he produced a stamped copy himself John Davis, farmer, Kaituna, deposed that in May last he entered into an agreement with defendant to cut timber (logs) for him at an average rate of 15,000 feet per week, until 400,000 feet h.id been delivered. The price was 2s. 3d. per 100 feet, and was to include delivery at Wells' mill at Havelock ; after a time an arrangement was come to whereby Wells undertook to do the rafting from plaintiff’s tramway down the Kaituna river to the mill (about two miles) for 4d. per 100. The arrangement shortly after came to an end by reason of the disagreement, and he found it necessary to sue for the money due on what had been delivered. A cross-action was also brought by Mr Wells, for whom Mr. Nelson appeared, against Messrs. Davis and Campbell on a claim of £248, reduced to £IOO to bring it within the jurisdiction of this Court, for damages sustained by the nondelivery of 292,597 feet of limber, contracted for and not delivered. The cases were ultimately taken as one, and lasted until Thursday noon, when judgment was given virtually for Mr. Wells. Messrs. Davis and Co. having to pay £lO, and all costs in both actions.