RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume II, Issue 60, 13 March 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

[Before J. Poynter, Esq., R.M.] This Day. CHARGE OF STEALING BRICKS. Thomas Field was charged by W. Hammond with feloniously stealing 2000 bricks, valued at £3. Mr. Pitt appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Keou for defendant. The Magistrate said it struck him that it was a civil case, and Mr. Keon stated it was a case of trespass. Mr. Pitt said he would put in an agreement to prove a contract between the parties. He clled VV. Hammond, who said : I am a brickmaker, residing in Nelson. I entered into the agreement now produced, dated Ist October, 1866. [The agreement stated that the parties contracted to make bricks on Mr. Field's laud on the Waimea-road. The defendant agreed to hire the plaintiff to make bricks, for one year from the Ist October, 1866, and for two years longer, the agreement to be terminated by either party giving three months' notice of breaking it Plaintiff was to make 200,000 bricks, of which he was to deliver to defendant oue-third out of each kiln, the plaintiff to keep the remaining twothirds and pay all expenses ; the defendant to pay Is. per week for half a year to plaintiff.] I was entitled to two-thirds of the bricks as my own property. I prod uce my books. I commenced to make bricks from December to January last. The iirst kiln I made was 13,078, the whole of wliich defendant took. In the second kiln, in January, I made 15,912 bricks, of which Mr. Field had 9900. The third kiln made 16,099, iv February, of which 4000 were delivered on the Sth March to defendant. I did not deliver the 4000 ; Frank Blincoe did,, with my authority. Ou the Bth March, Mr. Field took some more. On the 7th March I wrote a letter to him, stating that as he had 4000 bricks from the third kiln, he could not have more till I had my share. Mr. Keon said he would produce the letter in cross-examination. Witness continued : Mr. Field having had considerably more than his third share, previously, I pressed for my share and wrote to that effect to the best of my recollection. His Worship said it was quite clear to him Mr. Pitt's remedy avus by civil action, no felonious intent of stealing having been shown. Mr. Pitt contended it was a case of might against right, the defendant having taken the law into his own hands, and this he was anxious to show iv evidence. Witness continued : Mr. Field came to me on the Bth March. His Worship : It was evident that the defendant was equitably in possession and he could not see how the case should be gone on with. He thought nothing could be got but damages. Mr. Pitt said if the plaintiff could not proceed for stealing, he could not proceed at all, as the bricks were not his property. His Worship admitted that a man would do anything in Nelson, where a man's bouse was certainly not his casile. Mr. Pitt replied that this was a case of larceny, unless Mr. Field could show a right to the bricks. The property was taken agaiast plaintiff's will. Mr. Keon submitted it was a case of tresspass and not one of property in the bricks. Witness : Mr. Field called at my house and asked me to come and take my six months wages. 1 refused then, but got it after. He asked me to deliver his bricks in the kiln, and I refused to deliver any more. He asked several times and I refused, he then said he would go and take them. After the 4000, he was entitled to 1000, or a little over. I warned him against taking them, and sent him a notice, I stuck on the kiln, forbidding any person to take any bricks against my consent. He did take bricks, 6349 in number, exclusive of the 4000, making altogether 10,349, of which over 5000 belonged to me. Before taking this number, on the morning of the Btb, I took him a letter from my solicitor. He threw it out of the cart and refused to read it. I claim £8 as the value of the bricks. I saw him take some of them, or load them in the cart, to the number of 10 or 15. Blincoe saw him take them all. To Mr. Keon: Mr. Field was to have one out of every three made in the yard. I suppose it was Mr. Field's land. Mr. Pitt admitted this. Witness : I first made bricks in the month, of • October. I delivered all to'

•B-m^— ■■ 'ii ■ byj!iiti,.Jj i *t**yß"^?!f l ?^ l^^gW^ him except the 6349, or caused them to be delivered. I delivered the whole of the first kiln, because he requested me and advanced me £25, the bricks came to £52 6s. My balance was £34 odd. I did not deliver bricks after receiving the £25. I delivered 13,078 bricks to Mr. Field out of the 18,802 first made on the 3rd December. His Worship again stopped the case saying it Avas clear to him there was no anirrus furandi, and he must dismiss the case. Under the agreement there was a clause of arbitration, and the question might be raised of a right in the bricks. Had the case come before him iv the first instance in a different form, he might have restrained defendant from taking any more bricks. Re could not alloAV costs. Mr. Pitt said he did not mean to intimate that it was a case of ordinary larceny, but. it AA-as a case in which the defendant by a strong hand was presisling in oppressing his client. If there was no criminal there Avas no civil remedy and the present action was brought to prove avlio Avas the proprietor of the bricks. It Avas a pure question of property, and a man Avbo took it Avithout the consent of the owner was guilty of larceny. Mr. Keon defied Mr. Pitt to point out a case that Avould justify him iv making such observations. His Worship said the plaintiff could apply for ar: injunction. Case dismissed. Norton v. Baker. — Claim £1 55., value of goods detained. Defendant lodged a sett-off of two weeks' board £\. Plaintiff denied he owed anythiug for board, and defendant affirmed that he did. His Worship adjourned the case to inquire whether plaintiff really did consume the food for which he was charged.