Resident Magistrate's Court.

Manawatu Herald, 16 June 1892, Page 2

Resident Magistrate's Court.

Foxton. — ♦ (Before H. W. Brabant Esq, R.M). Thursday, 16th June. civil cases. Hennessy, Westwood & Co. v. Rogers & Coley — Claim £5 4s 2d. No appearance of defendants. Judgment for amount claimed and costs 21s. George Smith and Eliza Smith v. T. F. Gibson -Claim £76 Is. There being no appearance of plaintiffs, Mr Bake' 1 asked that the case might stand over for a little time. W. Owen v. G. Coley - Claim £6 18s 4d. Plaintiff said he was a generaljflax mill hand ; the claim was for work done at one of defendant's mills ; he worked four weeks and four days, from the 16th February to 18th or 19th March ; he was to get 50a a week ; had received a cheque for £5 ; Watson had engaged him with Coley's consent, he had said it would be all right. Cross-examined — Watson had told him to go to Coley for his money and Coley had told him to go to Wataon ; Coley had told him there was no money coming ; Coley was not present when Watson engap/cl him ; there was no contract existing between Watson and Coley ; until he had been working a fortnight knew of no arrangement. By the Court - Coley gave cheque on 18th Mafch on account, and said " the balance was safe enough." Since that he had paid others up ; Watson was not present when £o was paid ; had no order or note to get it ; the mill wag called Coley's upper river mill.

Charles Burnel said after Owen came back from Wellington and Owen was with Watson and had stated there was no money, ho went straight to the office and got his cheque which he showed them. By Court— WHen first engaged understood Watson was carrying on the business ; Got wages from Coley George Coley said he had let the mill and had only to find machinery, green flax, coal and bench-loader. He had let the mill at £5 10s a ton ; he never engaged the men ; he produced book showing Watson's account ; he denied he ever said " the money would be right ; " Watson was sick in bed when Owen got the £5 ; had charged the £5 to Watson. By plaintiff— lt was not understood when mill was taken off that he would pay all hands. By the Court — Had paid as far as the money went ; could not say if all had been paid ; thought there was 14s Gd in Watsons favour. The E.M. said the facts showed the plaintiff was engaged by Watson to work at a flaxmill ; Watson was a sort of contractor ; the extraordinary part of the matter seemed that defendant had paid all the hands at the mills without an order from Watson to do so ; it was a very loose way of acting ; he thought plaintiff knew he was working for Watson, as his witness also knew ; he did not see he could hold defendant liable ; the plaintiff would be nonsuited On the case of Smith v. Gibson being again called, Mr Baker said he did not think he could go on with the case, as the plaintiffs were not down, and the constable had stated, from some who had come down, that they had not made any efforts to appear. This case was again held over till the other cases had been heard. CRIMINAL. Timothy O'Loughlin was charged that he did on or about the 80th day of January, 1892, at Shannon sell certain liquor, to wit whisky, which he was not licensed to sell. The accused pleaded guilty. Timothy O'Loughlin was charged that he was on the 10th day of March, 1892, on the premises known as the Wellington and Manawatu Club, situated at Shannon, for the purpose of illegally dealing in liquor. The accused pleaded not guilty. The constable said Mr Baker had telegraphed yesterday that|O'Lo»ghlin would plead guilty to both charges, and that he (the constable) was not to summon any witnesses. The constable produced the telegrams which had passed. Mr Baker said apparently it was his fault. The constable asked liow O'Loughlin pleaded. Mr Baker said " Not guilty." The constable applied then that the case be adjourned to next Court day After considerable argument Mr Baker instructed O'Loughlin to plead guilty. Timothy O'Loughlin was placed in the box by Mr Baker, and he said he built the hotel, but his wife was the owner; lived in the house on the date of the charges ; the constable seized some liquor on his premises ; he was working on the top of the building; as regards Hinds, the man bad often come drunk from the other hotel, and he often gave him a drink ; he personally had not sold a bottle of whisky to Hinds, to which he had pleaded guilty ; one day four men came in and had drinks there, and he took their money ; Hinds had told him he could not say where the bottle of whisky was got. Owing f .o a previous conviction had had to withdraw application for a license. By constable — Do not know why I pleaded guilty ; because I did not remember selling this bottle of whisky (the R M. noticing the evasive manner of replying, said "I suppose you have sold so many you cannot recollect this particular one") The constable stated that the police had seized 1 jar brandy, 1 jar whisky, 53 pint bottles ot ale. The R.M. said that the defendant had pleaded guilty to two charges. It appears that this is the second offence for which defendant has been oonvicted un'ler the Licensing Act; for the first offence he had inflicted a merely nominal fine of £5, though the costs had run up. It appears in this case that there are no extenuating circumstances, but he would, however, consider it as a first offence, seeing no conviotion had been recorded previous to the charges being laid. For selling the liquor he is fined £30 and costs, 71s lid, or one month's imprisonment, and the liquor to be forfeited. On the charge of being on the premises, he is convicted, and ordered to pay the costs, 12s. The defendant was allowed three weeks to pay the fine and costs, Smith v. Gibson again cropped up. The plaintiffs again were not present. Mr Ray said they were present to defend the case, and he asked that it be dismissed. Anyway he asked that if there should be any adjournment it should be on the terms that the costs are paid in before the case is heard, and a reasonable time before the hearing. Mr Baker objecting, the R.M. said it was open to him to take a

, ..... ... j,___j.,'._ __^t.^i. _j non-suit, otherwise some terms should be given to the other sido. Mr Ray said there were three witnesses, Gilbert Mair, Edwin Davis, and Richard Gray. The "R.M. allowed witnesses costs 43a, solicitor's fee 21 a.. Mr Baker having objected to make an agreement to pay these costs in, The R.M. said the best course was to nonsuit the plaintiffs with wit--nesses casts 495, court fees 9s, and solicitor's fee 425. s "