MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XII, Issue 84, 11 April 1877, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURT.

TRESPASS,

(Befbre^A: J. Ri<.h'mond;-H. C; -Daniell, . and J. Symons, Esqs., J; J.P.) ! ■' """"" 'XsMt>ay: : ' i -.- MISCELLANEOUS^ CASES. !''' ' .William .Gal yip. was .charged with being drunk and incapable. "It was the first time," said the accused. "He is a regular soaker," said the Inspector of Police. Fined 5s and costs. J. Burrell, ' charged with allowing two horses to be at large in tie streets, was fined 5s each, arid costs 6s 6d. ' W. Jones was charged with the same breach-of the bye-laws, with a like result. J. C. Moutray had been summoned for allowing one horse to stray, but did not appear. Fined ss; and 9s costs. ASSAULT. i. John Ingham was charged with assaulting Thomas Berry. Mr, Fell appeared for the 'defendant. '■'"■■■■■ Thomas Berry sajd.he- was at work in St. Vincent-street. when defendant said, " Come had, Government str-oke here." Ireplied "You should he the last to talk about Government stroke,'" when he struck at me with a pick, and hit me oh the side. . I have tlio mark now. Cross-examined; I did not swear at him at all. I did not sec him throw down the pick ■and say it wanted sharpening. I did not tear my shirt myself. This was the case for the complainant. George- Ingham : I. was. at work in St. Vincent-street. I said to John Maule— " Make that shovel go a bit, aud let's havo no Government stroke here." Berry immediately began to swear at me and abuse me. I took no notice, and shortly after I threw down my pick from the top of the bank, saying that it wanted sharpening. I did not throw it at him. Three other witnesses corroborated lugham's statement. Case dismissed with costs. DEBT CASES. Trautvetter v. E. L. Shaw.— Action to recover £6 os, balance of account due. Mr Bunny appeared for the plaintiff, for whom judgment was given, with £1 IGs costs. Smith v. Rowe. — Action to recover £2 1 7s for wine supplied. Defendant did not appear. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs. Scott v. Dark. — Action to recover £13 2s 3d for timber supplied to defendant when working at a contract at Cable Bay. Mr Pitt appeared .for the plaintiff. . Defendant did not appear. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs £2 2s.

Donaldson v. Nash.— Action to recover £20 for damiigcs occasioned by the removal of goods from a booth erected afc the Caledonian Society's- Gathering on New Year's .Day. Mr Pitt appeared for tl c plaintiff, and Mr Fell for.the .defendant. • Mr Richmond here left the Bench owing to his being a Director of the Caledonian Society. Mr Pitt, having opened the case for the plaintiff, called J.Donaldson. I was afc the sale of booths for the| Caledonian Society's Gathering. The Publicans' Booths were sold first. - The No. 1 was sold to Stevenson on the condition that it was to have plenty of accommodation, and tea to be provided. To No. 2 there were no conditions attached. The next Avas No. 2, fruiterers' stall, which I bought for £3 10s. I have always had a fruiterers' stalt at those gatherings, where I have sold pastry and cordials. I put a booth up at a cost of between £3 and £5. The gathering was an unusually large one. I opened my stall at about half past ten. Stevenson made no complaint to me about selling partry. Shortly after Mr Black came up and ordered me to terhove all that I had except fruit. I declined- to do so, Then Mr Broad came and told me I was guilty of a breach of contract. r I said I' was not, whereupon he ordered my money -to be tendered to me, which I refused. He wanted me to compromise with Stevenson, but 1 said I had nothing $ 36 with him. ' Then Nash came and told m^to. gather up all my things ahd clear them out.i I told him I was not & servant of h{s and would not do so. He and Betttie tlfen tookthe stuff I had sold to children aiid put it back on the stall..: They fcheh pitcked up what t had in the stall and took it &my, asking me for the key of my house' Which I declined to give. I did hot like this treatment for it made me look as though I Was breaking the law. I took 'about £30 Worth of stuff on to the ground. About 10 o'clock.p.m. Nash came to ray house' and told me he had brought my stuff back. I fcold him fo clear out, as I didn't want to have anything to say to him. Afterwards I went out and saw it all lying in the road. I got Black and Bisley to come and value it in the condition in which it then - was. They valued>it at £19. I could not sellsucha quantity, tut got rid of about £3 wdfth, and the rest went useless. I should have sold it all on the ground.

Cross-examined: I had two stalls at the regatta. The £3 worth were sold there. Nash hustled the things into a cart anyhow. My wife put some of the things in boxes. I did not pack any of them. I knew Nash, wanted the key of my house to takethe things there. I bought the stallj as a " fruiterers stall." There has always been a dispute about these stalls. There was a complaint made by Mr Black about it the previous, year. Stevenson's was sold as a ■.''confectioner's. .booth." Before the sale, .nothing was said as to what was to be sold in the fruiterer's booth. Mr Sharp told 'me after it that I was not to sell anything but fruit, ■ Neither Mr Sharp nor Mr Pickering said anything about it before the sale. , Re-examined: Mr Sharpspoke to me after the sale I said he should have told me before. He told me the stewards would* object if I sold anything but fruit. . .Bernard Moller:. I have, had a fruiterer's stall at the Caledonian Gathering, and have sold pastry, gin£erbeer, and cordials. There has always been a bother about these fruiterer's stalls. It would never pay to give £3 fdr a stall to sell fruit alone. I have never been interfered with.

James Donaldson, recalled: Goodison, who bought a publican's booth, was selling confectionery biscuits, &c. Cross-examined: I remonstrated about this. , Mr Mackay went with me to him and spoke about it, but it was not stopped. Mr Broad said they had no power to stop it, as his publican's license allowed him to sell anything of the kind. This closed the case for the plaintiff. Mr Fell, after, briefly opening the case for the defendant, called the following witnesses : — John Sharp: Mr Pickering sold the booths in December last. I, with Mr Moutray and Mr Burns, was watching for the Directors. After the publicans' booths were sold, I stated there would be only one confectioner's booth sold, and the others would be booths fo .* the sale of fruit, lemonade, and ginger beer only. Thia was stated by me and by Mr Pickering also. After the sale M* Vicar and Donaldson came to me, and the former said Donaldson would sell anything he liked. I said if he did he would be turned off the ground. Two days later Donaldson came to .me,and said he was sorry he had spoken as he did, but he was only blowing at the time. Cross-examined: lam perfectly sure that fruit only was to be sold. It,, does not appear in the stipulations in our book because they, were written just before the sale, md we only decided about the fruiterer's booth at the last moment after the sale had commenced. ' .' ; " „

Joseph Mackay: lamoiieof the Directors On the ground a complaint was made by Stevenson that Donaldson was selling pastry. We went to his stall and remonstrated, and tried to pei-shade him hot to. He said ■. he would sell, .*, We thenasked Stevenson if; he could uot make some arrangement \irith Donaldson. He ; said he did not mind. Donaldson would not agree. "We again tried to persuade him to give up selling but he would not listen to us. We offered him - his money back but he refused. We then sent for the police and shortly after the- goods', were removed. Cross-examined : Donaldson complained . that Goodison was selling confectionery. We askejd Goodison to cease selling them, and he said Tie would remove them. Malcolm Stevenson : I bought the confectioner's booth, and a fruiterer's booth, ..the latter for, Mrs Levy, whom, I said, l would supply with confectionery for sale if the Directors did not object. J. P. Black: lam one of the Directors. In 1876 there was a bother about Donaldson's selling pastry. He said nothing would bind him f but a written agreement. (The rest of this witness's evidence was similar to that given by Mr Mackay.) David ' Burns: I am a Director. We did all we could to pre ent there being any bother as in previois years regarding the stalls. I heard Mr Sharp at the sale state that nothing but fruit was to be sold at the fruiterer's s alls. Mr Pickering said so too, but Mr Sharp was very particular. Donaldson asked me after tho sale if he cquld sell anything but fruit. I said certainly not, and that he would he interfered with if he attempted it. John Nash: I was instructed by the Directors fo. stop Donaldson selling pastry. I went to him and cartior ed him. He took no notice and I called two constables to stop him, but it was no use, and then I asked the Directors what to do, and they told me to have the goods removed. I went back and told them to pack up, ard his wife and son and himself did so. I then seit for an exproas aud had the things placed, carefully in it. I asked Donaldson for the key of his house, but he would not give it, and so I took them to the station, and to his house as soon as he went home in the evening. Constable Beat-tie corroborated the foregoing evidence. Counsel then addressed the Bench, who reserved judgment until to-morrow. civil action. White v. Wallace. — Action to recover. £14 6s Gd for beer supplied to the defendant who is landlord of the Wakefield Arms. Mr Fell appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Pitt

for the defendant. A set off rwas put in of £24 Is, made up of :ihe. following, -items:— : 22<. gallons of beer alleged to ,'have* been delivered and not delivered £20 -14s; 36 v gallons returned as unsaleable £3 7s. 'The defendant claimed to recover iheNamounfe of excess! of ; set off ovei- plaintiff^ claimY Tlie--.totnl amount of short nieasuretuehfc'was arrayed at by defendant, on his attention being called to the possibility of the casks not containing the proper amount, measuring two of them and finding that they were each seven gallons short, whereupon he. claimed. that amount on all the casks thafcjhe had received. -. Theevidence, althougliit was.aU ahou^heefi vhisi of the dryest description. Political "differences, an unsigned lease, and complaints about the quality- aud quantiiy-of -.beer-, formed the elements of a very pretty quarrel which however did not possess much public ihterest. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £14 6s 6d, less £3 7s for beer returned, and £1 5s 8d for 14 gallons short. -'•-- - -