Untitled

Manawatu Times, Volume III, Issue 34, 12 April 1879, Page 3

v THU2BPA7 AvniL, 1879. [Before Robort Ward, R.M., and ; : ." jj. McNeil Esq,, J.P;] . . ..,."..-. : [ CiyiL CASES, , '. . ?^iltiam S. $ taite t. Pascqe ajid Companj. Clki'in,' £12 "w. ; . for profeßsibnal : services t |vnd^r v ed with rewd to, the license of the Fi'^jj jPLdtflL; Th« defendapja had elected jto hf 7jb thtif eridjenoe m t^e cue taken m Wejijngjon, and lifter the evidence of plain•tU^and his late partner had been taken, .the case, was, adjourned until $he eighth of 'May 'tip ajJMit of the -receipt ; of that from Wellington. '- •<££ /;;•;•. ";:'; $b«isy bbakdo*; , ■ ; ;■. When tWicase' of Pe^jjejT. Brandon was called on for. re-hearing, Mr. Staite /aaicbthat he.r£grettsd hi? filient, would bare ■•. *fc&iif .^el.(%^.%: : i^t:ra;:adjbiin^iMinti for the reason-that ia'moit' 'important witr nees liitfnbl; been found. Since the last -- day of hearing, Mr. Pepper had gone to a ,deal of trouble and expense, m h^ efforts , to ifind 'the Required. *)Ti4enc€(.; m fact, a mibpoßna had not only been forwa^dtd/ hut a pewpfr hift Iteencsp^ialhr; aes^atched' to Wanganui to hunt up the missing man, f%£oin he- waiiinf obned 1 UraM spme>h>is between that town and ?urokina. The en- ( 'hoWerer, had not been successful, and under the. circumstances it was con...aidjnsd,an adjournment should be granted, j^e- might inform the Bench that m antici- . p^4>n"Of the application being, granted, he . had .sent, noijice to the defendant that it WpiUd not be neceasary'for' him to attend that day with his witnesses. This, was done the new of aroiding' expense, so that ' if the infoi^nation had be|en disregarded his plianti would not he, saddled with, the responsibility, o In support of the- application p» injght .n)rg e . : that as ' jjjhe Bench deemed tKe plea presented before quite sufficient' to" ' re-opett' '^hej oase^' after judgment had geeji girei^, jt cowld not fairly, now refuse' -. •f^entargement' when 'it \y(aa'- r provod that erery legitimate andl possible tt^eans had. pSen taken to' Becure tne object for which tIM adjoiirim{ipV M h>d ':, Ijeeri : grantod.' In ~ fie/mlght say that he seldom if #ter' s h"eard ; of 'ah 1 'application made ujider ilmilar circumstances being refused, and he lifos^certainjy had never, Qppbsed one. ' 9 e therefore hdld that he" was 1 entitled to a pp^t; onetnent, to" be made, of opjurs^" under 'cJriain'terms.'* ■ " •-.-. , ■■ Mr. Maclean ' vnf t abrays most" willing -' l[p- i^ree "to any.; action wmo^!%ould 'irieet' the necessities of 'clients, 'butin chaC particular case he. did not think much consideraiion was? demarideU 'Through the laches of some person on the opposite side his clifihtVMr. 1 ?r»ndondid.not get notice i unffiptiUQ on Tuesday night that tlie case would hot, go ph. far heating, and \he conse--1 j^uence : was;thai| h^" had' 'bpeh placed a OQMiderablißtii B »4^*ntages 'J.udgmpnfc had tweK^giTeri ifter^a most patient hearing, '-frot certainly since, then' counsel for the p^tifi lad shown good reason for f reop^nj^, and it had. been granbd. Still iCifbuld be recollected that while the re- ' auiiMd,eTidence had been 1 at first offered to & prodaCe'd within a forbiigh^' tJiree^weeka faftd-elapud, ad that ample time had been allowed for t^he real' purposes of Ajie adjournment. His client, Mr. firandon, had 7 sold . .^uthis.pTOpCT^r^ith the iptentjon.of:rev^ring toi &we»; and efery- day's ' detent tion wat.an incoiyenience and %n expense. ' ' Mr^ Stait« «aid that' the -terms '•' upon .which the application was made were such alUjeuld not entail a hardship lupbn Mr. JSrandbn. 'Every effort would be made to -, discover the r needful witness, but it was within; uie, bounds of possibility , that ; they might;be unfuccessfid,' m which 'case due npticis wpiiTd'jbf giten to defendant ; mean- . w^^ costs 1 womal>epud by pliw * "''' v M*: War^^eaid the case^ had' assumed a n<^ phase frdnitbe statements made by plaintiffs cbuhseL 'Of •June if)headjoumrkfitit aiked for? were granted,, it would be conditionallf uppn^plaintiff paying all' expenses connected,.with the re-hearing up to f hat time, and as ; cpu^iiel-fbr-JMK 'Pepper Bta^d.^^if^.thf i pioo»edings were not car' ried further, timely notice to defendant, would be j^Ten, he could iiot see how dtfeh- ; d«nt could, b* prejudiced;: 'His only ; wish was to asi equitably between both parties. Mr. Maclean said tba^bV he was' ip ihe hands of the Court. 1 , ' • ' : on g^htingitbe^app^ication contingent upon th^^exp«ft*W incurred beingpajd before four o'clock Wat 'day, proceeded Co assess .. the amoun^p^costs. Two witnesses, to wiom it. were impossible to make known the^ postpbriement^were^aTlrarcfeaM% ;' M^\B^nd«n, ' Mr. Steite proi&tecl* against' the iinAgni- . tpde of^. the las^ item, asserting .that upder we Act^tbe ms^is'tirate ha* po such power. He said that %c- limit. 3ft^> in&Vgu' thr^ guineas: Hiajw'oulA.apiily fp^affirqhi- ■ tidni.,';'.' : : •'•:.. ; Vv . ■ ;.; * ■■■'■■--*'&■ •■■>■ '. ' 5 /"- Mr. Ward said . he was perfeofly ; aware ■ tbfts/the>so:ile for ordinary cases was just as^tfr. Staite , had •sser)te^: stdl he maul-'-I^^ t^^^f^n^tfiMtary'' ppwers/rii caws Kke tMt th«n>efor)i t^ie Court," and . determiriea to ejertoise it. He! wbuld "be much pleawdiif Jife^Staite /wpuMi take ihe step which he threatened, and, s : 6. settle. j|, nice -point; mea&^Ue. he wpulcl adhere lo his decision. '' : •' ' ''; ''JEf. Staiie asked, if \ plain^iff/a counsel if m the face 'of the prohibition to be applied forf; he was; willing : io sea the item remain a»iawarded.. /•-,, :; . ■■'.^ ■'-'. ...'-. '■' Mr. Maclean^ replied is the affirmative, as he had nd expectation that ifc could be •otasid«k ■: >■•',■; ; ■"._.■.■ ._ ;-■,' v , ■.-. then sa.id the ftpplicatjoa. fpr'adjburnment was granted upbn.tlie' ex|»Wß conditions that the defendant's ex OMses amounting to £10 10s., were paid m MiGWftWowtoVt o'clock,/ >

Mr. titaite said suca an order was virtually putting his client out of Goiutt. The ftfagistra' 0 said not, for -whether the prohibition were upheld or not, it would not prejudice the claim of plaintilf. INDECENT AND OBSCENE :DANCHTAOB. Joseph Hart was informed against by Sarah Jane* Montague with : having used in* decent and obscpne language to her on the 7th of April. The accused stoutly denied his guilt, hut the Bench was satisfied that the offence had been committed, and the ; chaiirman intimated that as the Court was determined to put down such conduct with a strong hand, a fine of £5, or one month's imprisdnment would be inflicted. - •'- ABSAULT. i A second charge, for assault, preferred by James Hinfcon, was next heard, and being also proved to the satisfaction of the Bench, a fine of £1, or fourteen days' imprisonment was imposed. ' - ■BBSIBTIKO THE POLICE. Thomas' Cribb, a half-caste, was charged with resisting Constable G-illespie, whilst m the execution of his duty. Ths accused, who had been out 1 on bail, denied the impeachment, but as the evidence of the police was corroborated by two witnese?, £1 penalty and costs was inflicted, amounting i» all fco ;g3 4s, DET7NK AND DISOEDEELY. The same prisoner and tw.o others were mulcted m the sum of £1 each and costs for the above offence, and The Court adjourned until the 16th intant. .•■ •• •-.'' .■■'■■ -.