Magistrate's Court, Foxton.

Manawatu Herald, 4 July 1896, Page 3

Magistrate's Court, Foxton.

Wednesday, 2nd July. (Before B. L. Stanford, Esq., S.M.) CRIMINAL. Robert Stanley was charged with having no visible lawful means, or insufficient lawful means of support. The accused pleaded not guilty. Constable Gillespie deposed that accused was arrested on 24th June for vagrancy. He was leaving Whyte's Hotel with two bottles of beer in his pocket. He was imprisoned some months ago. He has done no work. Eerr had been giving him a good deal of food. He has been imprisoned nine months for stealing liquor in Foxton. When arrested he was in a terrible state of filth, that he had to be given fresh clothes. Accused had nothing to say. Sentenced .to be imprisoned for three months with hard labour. Robert Stanley was charged with procuring liquor for prohibited persons at Fpxton. Accused pleaded not guilty. Constable Gillespie deposed— On 24th June Robert Stanley had 2 bottles of beer. He said Ahem had given him a shilling to procure the liquor. When asked if he knew Ahem was a prohibited person replied in the negative, but he knew Spelman was. Accused said he had done what he had unthinkingly. Convicted, and fined £1, in default 14 days. John Spelman was charged with having been drank on the 23rd and also on the 24th June last. Mr Bay appeared for accused. Accused pleaded guilty. Mr Bay desired to say he greatly regrets the occurrences, and will not offend again. He asked for a nominal fine. He felt satisfied the case would be a warning to him. Accused was fined £1 on each charge, and costs 7s on each charge. John Ahem was charged that he being the subject of a Prohibition Order did procure, on the 24th June, liquor from a licensed person within the district in which the order was in force. Accused pleaded not guilty. Mr Innes appeared for accused. Conßtable Gillespie called Robert Stanley, who deposed— Knew accused. Accused gave him a shilling and 2 empty bottles to get beer. Went to Stansell's. '1 he two bottles were those he was caught with. Would not have gone for beer if Spelman had asVed him, as he knew he was a prohibited person. He took the liquor to Spelman's shop, as Ahem was working there. By Mr Innes— Did not get the shilling to get a dinner. Spelman was not there. Jofyn Ahem deposed that Stanley had been in poor circumstances. Have given him sixpence now and then, and tobacco. Gave him a shilling that day, bat did not tell him to get liquor. Did not give him any empty bottles. By Constable Gillespie— All that Stanley has said is untrue. Had no liquor all that day. Had given him . 8s altogether. The accused's statements the Magistrate described a3 wholly untrue. He convicted and fined him £5 and 7s oosts, in default one month's imprisonment with hard labour. Mr Innes asked for time. The Magistrate gave till the next day to find the money. John Ahem was charged that knowing one John Spelman was the subject of a Prohibition Order, did assist the said John Spelman to procure liquor at Foxton. Constable Gillespie asked that the charge be dismissed. This the Magistrate agreed to. CIVIL OASES. S. M. Baker v. Epiha TauitiOlaim £9. ■Mr Innes for plaintiff. Defendant admitted the claim. Judgment for amount by confession, costs 21s, solicitor's fee 15s 6d. A. B. Smyth v. Kahoriki Pineaha — Claim £8 Is 6d. Mr Moore for plaintiff. Mr Innes for defendant. Adjourned to August 7th. W. H. Anderson v. J. A. Perreau —Claim £1 15s. Adjourned to August 7th. .' J. W. Anderson ▼. J. A. Perreau —Claim £1 15 a. Adjourned to August 7th. J. T. Ray v. Charles Better — Claim 18s 6d. No appearance of defendant. Judgment by default for amount and costs. T. Westwood & Co. v. J. Walls Junr. — Claim £4. No appearance of defendant. Judgment by default for amount and costs 6s. J. A. Perreau v. J. A. Anderson Claim' £96 7s 6d. Adjourned to August 7 h. T. Westwood & Co. v. John Smith —Claim £17 93 Bd. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount by default, and costs 273. Interpleader claim for goods valued at £10. to wit a Singer Sewing Machine—W. B. Rhodes v. Carl F. Mortensen, and G. F. Hawkins v. W. B. Rhodes. Mr Innes for Mr Hawkins. Mr Bay for Mr Rhodea. Adjourned to August 7th. F Hadfieldv. P. Dudson- Claim £18 2ssd. Mr Moore lor plaintiff, asked for an adjournment to next Court day. Mr Dudson objected, as he might

be in Auckland. The defendant had no claim at all. The Magistrate adjourned the case to Palmerston for Monday, the plaintiff to pay railway fare. A. Eeeve v. J. A. Perreau— Claim £1. Plaintiff deposed to doing carting of fibre from Anderson's mill for defendant. Perreau refused to acknowledge Anderson's order. Perreau ordered the goods and passengers to go out. John Anderson deposed that he had employed Reeves to cart the fibre to the Queen of the South. J. A. Perreau said his defence was that on 16th June he paid Beeves all accounts to date. The Magistrate held that the receipt was fatal to the claim, and gave judgment for defendant. J. A. Perreau v. James Liddell — Claim 7s. J. A. Pearreau deposed that he claimed for over payment. Defendant asserted that this was a fictitious claim. The Magistrate decided that the case had been previously decided, and plaintiff could not secure a judgment. Mr Liddell applied for expenses, which were disallowed.