Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Resident Magistrate's Court, Foxton.

WEDNESDAY, sth NOVEMBER. (Before H. W. Brabant Ssq, R.M.) CRIMINAL. Water Stevens charged with the larceny of a £10 not n Further evidence taken. Charleß Johnson, bong sworn, said — I remember the 28M) of last month. Was at tho Manawatn Hotel on that date. I *&w Murray thore. I saw the accused there iv the front parlour or commercial room. There wore 8 ov 9 people there. They were standing at the side door having drinks. Murray paid for the drinks at the time I had one. I did not, see him pay for them, I was en the corner of the table about 9 feet off. I saw Murray with a i'l note, I saw the back of the note, and I saw him put it back in his pocket after holding it up. Did not see him drop anything, but I heard a sixpence drop, and someone said pick ifc up yourself, and Murray pi -Red it up. I heard him complain of having lost a £10 note Hq said, " I have lost a £10 note." That is all lie said He did not look for it. He came and sat on the table by my I aide and said, " Charley, I have lost a £10 note." 1 saM, " I don't believe you, search your pockets. ' That is all I know about the whole j affair. He was not excited. I heard the prisoner accused of taking it. Ido not know who accmed him. He said to me, " Charley, this is the first time I have been accused of being a thief." I said, "Oh stuff" When the prisoner was accused, he said that it is tho first time in my life that I waa called a thief, and h« offered himself to be searched. Ido not know whether he had left .he room before be offered to be searched. Mr Murray was pretty inebriated, pretty lively as you may call it. George Amos Tapp, being sworn said — On the 28th of last month the informant Mr Murray, and the witness Wearing came to me about 5 o'clock in the evening. Murray complained of having lost a £10 note at Williams 's hotel. He was slightly under the influence ot liquor but appeared to know well what he was doing. The nest day the 29th I arrested the accused, at the time I arrested him I read the warrant to him. It was by virtue of warrant that I arrested him. In the lock-up I searched him I found no money on him. That is all. I arrested him in the back yard of S'anS'-ll's hotel at the stables. The KM , said- Thore nnt being in my opinion sufficient evidence to put accused on his trial, the accuied is discharged. CIVIL C.'AREts. Baker &Co v Rori R^ngihena. — Claim £7 3s for services of Somnus. Mr Rsiy for plaintiffs Mr S. M Baker and his son C. Baker gave evidence in support of theel int. Rori Raugiheua disputed the claim apparently on the ground of a guantntee h«vi g i-een uiven, and that moro padd eking had been charged than should have been, t-'e called a native »s a witness, who however know dotliing but what his wifu had told him. The case took up a long time, and the Magistrate gave judgemeufc for the amount claimed, with costs 17s and solicitor's fee 21s. In giving judgeraenl he said This is a claim for the service of an entire horse and the padlocking of two mares sent for sprvice. '\ he service itself is not denied, but the defences are, that the service should not be paid for till the mare is proved in foal, and the length of time charged for paddocking. As to ihe first, the guarantee has not een prove! and Mr Baker has proved that the fee without a guarantee Ins l^en charged, and that a fee and a half, the usual guarantee, is uot charged. He denies giving a guarantee. As to the time for paddoekii'g, the plaintiff relies on the books, which he mast say were not w.'ll k^pt, and the defendant merely relied on his own evidence, as to defendant's evidence, he contradicted himself repeatedly on a long cross-examination and he could not remember the conversations he hadhadwiih plaintiff. The Court must say he was not to be relied on. The Court must take the written books as more reliable than his statements. The whole case turns on the book kept by tho plaintiff's son, and there is nothing to throw doubt on th« entry, it is made among«t many other entries, and there is every thing to suppose it was made on the date it purports to have been made. Baker &Co v. John Burr~Claim £0 17a for services of Somnus. Mr Ray f r plaintiffs. S. M, Baker gave evidence. John Burr deputed the account. The R. M. in giving judgement said that the defence a leged was that a guarantee hud been given, but it was n t proved. Plaintiffs to have judgement for amount claimed, and costM 16s solicitor's fee 21s No ex ecu'i <n to issu* for 1 month. C E. Shortt v J. Bradoock and S. i Messina. ; Churn £8. Mr Ray for plaintiff aairi -The i ■ ac'ion ia to recrver 8 w eks wajje*. The pl-iinlifFs b. other went to work I 1 at defendants mil!. His work was oatching. H« worked 'or o c d»»

T£ « wa-i to receive 20s a "-fek After a day's work, tbo pr sent, pk ntiff w-'nt to laka his briber's p ac He told d^fendauts that his brother could not c >me, and he was a-kcii to take his plac** as catch r, but he de elided un-.J h : was asic dto car ing which he did in' 3 days and then was tod to 40 fielding Charles E. Shortt. F 11. B'iortt andC. E. h'u-tt a 1 gave evidence for the plaintiff, and J. Bradcoek f r the deiend nt. The . M said tlie de r ence is that a su'o-contr ct. v- was rhe proper person to pay tlio plaintiff. Tue ca>e turns on the fact whether he was eng.iged by one of the defendants > — Bradco?k. The plaintiff says he , wa<? discharged by James. He took an order to Messina, and was put off till James had left, and then hv> was told the defendants were not liable. The plaintiff's father gives evidence, that defendant had put the boy to carting, From the evidence as a whole I am inclined to believe the plaintiff did not understand that James had engaged him. aud that defendant had believed it was so understood, but he had not seen that plaintiff did so. The order given by' James to the boy might have assisted the Court ii it had been produced, but dtfdendants had lost it. On the evidence as a whole the judgement must pass to the plaintiff. Witness 10j, costs 12s.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MH18901111.2.15

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Manawatu Herald, Volume III, Issue III, 11 November 1890, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,167

Resident Magistrate's Court, Foxton. Manawatu Herald, Volume III, Issue III, 11 November 1890, Page 2

Resident Magistrate's Court, Foxton. Manawatu Herald, Volume III, Issue III, 11 November 1890, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert