RESIDENT MAGISTRATES'S COURT.

Manawatu Times, Volume III, Issue 103, 31 December 1879, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES'S COURT.

v'iJ TV'edx¥3dat; Deck jibe a, 24, i.879. ■ [Before R. Ward,' Esq., R..M.J' iiLBqAL sLAjj(?Eißnnf&. ' r ';" .■ ■■■'• The ohaijgs brought against ; Mr. Robert Mackie of slaughtering cattle, intended for sale, within the town boundaries, was again hroughtVup. ' Thecasehad been before the Court ;,upon three previous occasions, but h«d been adjourned from time, to the production of evidence ; if was condupted by Constable Gilleapie. ■ Only two , witnesses were examined— an etiiplcyS of Mx. Maokie, named 'Q-r^es, and the defendant himielf-. It had been proved at I foruieriiearing* that the "mßait 'slaughtered : had nofcjboea offered' 'for sale, but on account of having been worried by. dogs, two 4ambs ? had ibeen. killed and chopped up for fowl feed. When m the box, sfr. Mackie bwot^, mos..t;;jjositiy»ly that although tho meat hac v been hung up m tho shopj 'it - s was there • only, for-corive,-; nience, and it was never intended to dispose j of the carcases for hjima.n^o.od. • . . .,-. r : • pnder the circumstances, as there was no proof of a breach v of the. Act, and fche defendant Tolunteered the evidence that there was not <Bven an intention, the Bench had no other option than to dismiss the information. v ■■■■"■ a ' ; -"' : -' At the close of the case, Mr; Hawkins' who appeared for ' Mr. ;Maokie, said ; he. though (■ that it shoiild be- compulsory upon the police, when such informations were laid to have suffioJQiiKevidence to copyict ' before taking action, > as it was Vary annoying to haye chargqs initiated which had to bo adjou raed time jaf ter- tim.e^ at}d could not be substantiated. ' : ' - ■' svrt. "Ward agre.^d wi%; the renoofka of counsel as far as they wei^e. appli^d^generally, but ha- felt Ajo.und to say tha^ m th© c.asa then before^ tlie -Cpurfc, he thought tte Cbnstablo was qaite rijjht m- layipg the information, as althotfglt. he "(the miigiir ' trate,); fully believed the evidence of Mr.. Macßie, that no breach was intended, the surrounding circumstances of the case wese highly suspicious, an^ : fully wavrant^dtbe action taken. Ho was glad the case, had b,een thoroughly . investigated, and "ha.4"" proved groundless, as had. it been prpy6,t^ he would, hare. felt compelled to hare inflicte,d a heavy penalty. _---■■ j . *-orviiii.cfASßs. ••■ ■•• •'] r.H.K.; Mnclachlan v.C. Chithrie.— Claim, ! £2; 55., amount . claimejd for proftssional seKvices^renflered. ■*Def6nd«nt did not appear, and judgment was recorded* ex pdrie for "amount claimed arid costs, ; .■ ■ : HrE, ;Maclachlan v. Christian Berg.— Clahii, £4 43.,^'for' profelsional services rendered . ; Defendant admitted the debt; and asked for. a couple^ of xnonths wherein to pay th.« amount. The plairiMff *" stated that the sum had' been some" six moritlw owingr, that he had repeatedly asked for it/ and off ereil to m ke, it by; V hat eve.^. instill raents wduld have 'been iho^t convenient, W evidefftly pjpo^d inconvenient to Uv en »tate, a, time' m whtch to do 'bo. The JBeiih' drdered.fche claim tdb« discharged within a month. Rbbeift NortK Keeling (on behalf of the .Bprpugh ;Cou^cil), v. John Kennedy.— 01»imi-:l4rf,-6d., f,or rates diie. Mr. Hawkins rapresented fcbe. Corporation, and defendant did not appea^ ' It appeared that there* was one- year's ra^s. which could not be legally •kimod, ir,d judgment 'was given r ' ! for aftcl *l 15s; cos>, "" * * r ' o^in| *• R- %all,— Clain>,

for goods. delivered. h Tho defendant did not pilt m an appearance, and judgment by default was given, together with costs. Jolm Whittle v. H. Fuller.— This was an action brought by: Whittle fur £1 103, the value of three geese which had bepn stolen frpin pljuntiff and sold by some Maoris to the defendant. From the .pvideuee of Fuller, the tranßaction connected with the •ale was a perfectly fair and legitimate one. He called Constable GKllespie,. who proved •that the vendors of the stolen fowl had •been openly hawking tlie geese about town •for^sile, before finally disposing of them to Fuller. The Bench said that accbrctingvto the evidence adduced, the defendant had bought the fowl m a perfectly legitimate manner, and under no suspicious circum-stances,-consequently the plaintiff would .have -to be non-suTtecl, Fwifch costs. The [only remedy for plaintiff would be to discover the Vtllieves' and punish them. The Constable; said that since the first occurrence 'he" had been away from the district, first at the Supreme Court,, and afterwards on leave of absence, but 'before leaving he had instructed his locum tenens m the tacts of the case. Although so far the offenders had not been discovered, it was hoped they soon would be. . . • E. F. Charles v. Joseph Soury. — Claim, J £12 2s. 6d; upon a dishonored promissory note. Tlie defendant did not appear, but Mr. Staite, who represented plaintiff, handed m two letters from Mr. Sowry, m which he acknowledged his liaoility, and regretted his inability to meet it. The Bench asked the plaintiff where the debt had been incurred j arid upon being informed that ' defendant resided m Woodville at the time of "the trahsactionj 'said it was a question, of jurisdiction. Mr.. Staite, however, pointed out that a recovery could, be; had upona promissory note m tlie court nearest to the person m whose .favor ifc was drawn, pr into whose possession it had passed! * The Bench admitted that such was the case, and gave judgment for amount claimed, and costs. Thomas Moffatt t). H. Downey. — Claim, £2 4s. Bd., for "meat supplied. Plaintiff stated that since the issue of the summons, he had recived £2 by post. Judgment" was 'accordingly given for the balance— 49. Bd., and costs. : Mr. HaSfkias appeared for, plaintiff. ' Thomas Moffatfc v. Richard Peck. — Claim £2 2a. No appearance of defendant, and judgment iv default. ■Manawatu Times (per F. Mowlem) v. "JoTm ';-\ Maysmor. — Claim, £19 15s. 6d Judgment confessed. John Sheerin i>, W. Flyger.— Claim, £26, for damages done to, a crop of wheat by defendanlV cattle. Mr. Staite appeared for Mr. Flyger, 7 and plaintiff conducted his own case. A considerable amount of .evidence was taken m support of the claim, and at tlio close, of plaintiff's' case, Mr. Staite applied fora non-suit upon three ground* : — First, one of the witnesses, Barney Sheerin, m his evidence-- during Ihe hearing of the cue, admitted that he was interested m the .land, and consequently he should have been made a partner; m the suit ; secondly, there was no' evidence whatever to, prove the trespasses upon 1 the particular dates set 'down' in the- summons ;.-. and thirdly, the particulars 'in the summons did not diacloto any cause of action, inasmuch as the ownership of the cattle trespassing was neither t implied' nor proven. The Bench held that the objections of the counsel wore fatal to the case, and non-suited plaintiff with costs. Eichter, Nanneatad, & Co. v. John Octavius Batchelar. — Claim, £49. Mr. Fritz Jenssen. one of the firm, conducted the ;casefor the plaintiff^, and Mr. Maclean defended. Plairitiffi "sued upon a written order gi von by a man named Banbury for fcue paritienb of which it was allaged defendant promised verbally to be answerable. 'Mr. Mo clean cqutended that the order not .'haTing'Mr. Batchelar'* name to it wn3 not binding uroji him, and it 'was well known that the verbal guarantee meant nothing, and was perFectly worthlessiiniess when m writiug. As the plaintiffs therefcro sueJ. upo() the. guarantee, ha should claim a nonsjijt! 'The Bench held that the law was as defiue.4 by cquuscl; and- non-suited the plainfjffa with £7 13s. costs. ' Henry Halford v. George , Sherwood Adanw. 1 — Claim, £2 Is-. 6d.,"tbe prieo of a rabbit and some coala delivered to defendant;.'' 1 ;The defendant did. nob deny having received delivery o£ the articles, the value qf wliicji was sued for, but he disclaimed btmng ever given an order for them. In «d,ditjon" to*; t his, also; h? stated that" the rabbit was a present, that it was cooked during the visjt^pt' the plaintiff, and that he ate. the lion's share of it. A set-off was put m iin^ouu'ting, §0 £2;,3d,; €ld., two o hillings more than the. sum claimed. The plaintiff did not appear, but an application ' was made (>9 have jj>he, eridence of defendant taken " and ■ forwarded thither, under the provisions -of Act m sucli- casas proyided That was done, and ; ."« The pourtrthen adjourned.