Untitled

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume II, Issue 69, 23 March 1867, Page 2

In the Resident Magistrate's Court today, James Patching was fined 20s. and costs, and Edward Stanton 10s. and costs, for a breach of the Cattle Trespass Act. The magistrate heard further evidence in the adjourned ease of Mabin v. Lockhart and Co., claim, £38 6s. Bd. Defendant disputed the claim on the ground that he received instructions from Mr. Kirkwood,' to dispose of a quantity of goods, and furnish him returns, who paid him £25 on account of said sales, with an understanding that he should have nothing ..to do with the plaintiff as agent. It was admitted that the account sales were made out in the name of the plaintiff, but without the defendant's knowledge. The ma-, gistrate gave judgment 1 for* plaintiff, for the amount "claimed, less £1 16s. Bd, a sum claimed for. interest, on the* ground that defendant bad dealt with plaintiff as a principal, which was peri sistently denied. Mr. A. Pitt appeared for defendants., Charles Gentry, of the 'r W-katu Hotel,' was complained against by • Sergeant Nash for not removing a watercloser, that was, a public nuisance, after, having received seven days' /notice tor Uu: : so. Mr. JLiugdon,' who appeared' i-or, de- v fendant, admitted the existence of. the Vater-closet^yhich' was v c leaned reg ulariyr; every eight; 'days and': lime- washed,"; arid \

had uot been complained of before. Men had been engaged to remove it, but the mees hail interfered with their doiug so. If persons Avere to be made responsible lor such things, where -was it to end ? It; would be better to follow the example of the poiice at Wellington, who gave parries six mouths' uot'ce to introduce -the-dry earth system. This, however, would shortly be remove I. It was hard to press thus ou a single individual. Tlie Magistrate said it Avas incumbeut on him to see that the Act was complied .with and the public health protected. He. had uo objection to postpone the case till Wednesday next. If the nuisauce was theu removed, no further proceedings would he takeu ; if it was not, defendant would be fined £10, the penalty imposed by the Act. Defendant said the order of the Court \vould be attended to j but he could not help remarking that the prosecution originated, he thought, iu a little bit of spire ou the part of Mr. Hornby.