RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

North Otago Times, Volume II, Issue 27, 25 August 1864, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thuhsday, August 18th. (Before T. W. Parker, Esq., R.M.; and W. G. Filleul, Esq., J.P.) H. Waymouth y. G. Taylor.

Present, the plaintiff; and Mr R. Julius for defendant. This was a summary action, brought under 11 and 12 Victoria, in which the summons stated that the defendant, on the 16th inst., at Oamaru, did unlawfully detain from the plaintiff one bank-note cf the value of £5. The following witnesses were examined: — Henry Waymouth, sworn —On the evening of Tuesday, the 16th inst., at Baker's Hotel, myself, the defendant, and several others were present. One of the said parties, Julius, proposed to lay down on the floor of the room a piece of paper, against which, or at which, I was to stand, and that the other party (Julius) should come up arcl stand with his hands behind his back, and that I could not strike him in the face. I said that it was absurd to suppose that I could not do it, if there were no trick or " sell" in the matter. Tho party (Julius) then offered to bet £5, or any sum, that it could not be done, and turned to mc, offering to bet mc that amount —namely, £5. I stipulated that there should be no " sell," which was agreed to on behalf of Julius, and it was finally proposed that the trial should come off there and then. I took the sum of £5, in a bank-note, from my pocket, and the note, I believe, was taken out of my hand by Julius, I have made a formal application for the money, but it has been refused. I made the application because I suspected that there was a particular way of standing on the paper which rendered the proposed act of striking an impossible one. One of the conditions of the "bet," if " bet" it may be called, was that it should go to the Benevolent Asylum ; but as that was not agreed to by the other parties, who insisted to devote it to local purposes, I have brought the matter forward. Cross-examined by defendant's agent —I deny that I consented that the money should go to tho Church. I deny having acknowleged to have lost the bet. John Sl_u_inglaw, sworn —On the evening of the 16th inst., I was at Baker's Hotel. I saw the plaintiff there at the time and the defendant, George Taylor. There was a " bet" made in reference to apiece of paper on the floor, at which two parties were to stand, and one was to attempt to strike the other in the face. The paper was to be placed in a particular poiition by one of the parties wherever he liked, and he was to stand with his hands behind his back, and if the other was to strike the first party in the face, the bet was to be lost. One of the parties pulled out £5 from his pocket, and laid it on the table. A person present (the defendant) offered to lend £5 to one of the parties, and was appointed, I believe, by the plaintiff, as stakeholder. The paper was laid on the floor, and one of the parties came up to it, but I did not see the plaintiff como up to it; and because the plaintiff did not come up to it, I heard the other

party claim the bet d_ his, Tho bet, in any event, was to go to the Benevolent Asylum, but it was afterwards agreed to that it should go to tho Church at Oamaru. There was no trial with the paper going on when the money was bet. It was in the hands of the defendant as a deposit, and he acted as stakeholder. Plaintiff said that he would put it to the company present in the room as to whether he had lost or not, and they declared that he had lost, when he agreed that it should go to the Church. Cross-examined by plaintiff—l was sober on that evening. The following morning I discovered that there was a " sell" in reference to the trial of the paper. Reginald Julius, sworn—l was at Baker s Hotel on the evening of the 16th inst. Tho plaintiff and defendant were there. The plaintiff w-s very much intoxicated. I wbb sober. I refuse to answer that the paper trial waß a " sell." I appear on behalf of the defendant, who informed mc that he had business that would prevent his attendance. After adjournment for further evidence : — George Taylor, sworn—l wbb at Baker's Hotel on Tuesday evening, the 16th inst. I saw the plaintiff there. There were other persons there. I heard a proposition made by Mr Julius, who was one of the parties, that he would lay a piece of paper on the floor, and that another party should put his foot upon the paper, and that such second party should not-be able to strike him (Julius) in tho face. Julius bet £5 that no one could do it, and plaintiff agreed to bet that sum that he could do it. The £5 was laid on tho table by plaintiff, and I lent £5 to Mr Julius. It was agreed to between the parties, Julius and plaintiff, that the money should be deposited in my hands to await the event. Mr Julius then went up to the paper, but the plaintiff roso from his chair and sat down again, and he said that he wouldn t have it. As plaintiff refused to come up, Mr Julius claimed tho stakes, to which plaintiff gave in, as I understood, from his saying that ho could keep the money. I had never seen tne proposed paper trial before; it was quite strange to mc, nor have I seen it attempted since. I believed the trial to be quite correct, although it did not take place. I think that the two parties, plaintiff and Julius, were m a muddled state. Cross-examined by plaintiff—l heard nothing said when you took up the challenge that there should be no " sell." I heard nothing said by Mr Julius as to where the paper should be. I heard nothing said by any one urging you to bet. When the money was laid on the table, I heard nothing said about the Benevolent Asylum. When you asked mc for my name, I did not give you the name of George Taylor, but George Ramsey. I have heard that the " sell" of the paper trial is to put the paper under the door. My name is George Ramsey Taylor. j Francis Orlando Shipton sworn.—l was at Baker s Northern Hotel on Tuesday evening. There were several persons there; among them I saw the plaintiff and Mr Julius. I heard a bet of £5 made between the two parties in question. Mr Julius bet that plaintiff could not hit him in 23 seconds. They were to stand toe and toe m the room, about 8 inches apart, with a piece of paper between tliein. Both parties went up to the paper, but the trial was not made, as the plaintiff said there was some sell or another. The money had been deposited in a stakeholder's hands before the trial was made. I heard no claim made to the stakes, nor by plaintiff to have his money back agamr' 1 have seen the trial with a piece of paper made several tunes before. I have seen it with a table between, or with a partition, such as a door, between. I have never seen two persons who could strike each other under such cu-cum- | stances. I know it to be impossible for two persons with a door between them to strike each other. I know that the trial of paper of the above kind is what is termed a " sell," to take m an unwary person or any one else. In this particular instance 1 did not hear it proposed to put the paper under the table or under a door. I heard of no proposition to put the paper in any place that would render it impossible lor two persons to strike each other. The paper was placed on the floor at the end of the table, and three or four feet from it, and there was nothing to prevent two persons toeing the and striking each other. Cross-examined by Plaintiff.—The paper laid on the ground was objected to by Mr Julius, who said that he would lay the paper down where he thought proper. I heard you say that there was some "Bell," and that you would have nothing more to do with it. By tho Bench. —I heard it proposed that the amount should go to some charitable fund —perhaps the Benevolent Asylum was mentioned —but 1 cannot say whether this conversation took place before or after the money was lost. Regmald Julius re-called, sworn, and examined by the plaintiff.—l recollect going up to the paper placed on the floor, and your going up to it. I requested to be allowed to place tho paper where I liked in the room. I heard, no remark as to the trial of the paper being a " sell." I have seen two persons toeing a piece of paper and one strike at the other. I have seen two persons toeing a piece of paper, with obstacles between them, and striking at each other. I have seen paper laid under a door, and parties attempting to striko each other. I have also seen persons attempting to strike each other with no obstacle between them—with nothing but a piece of paper between them. It may not be always possible lor one of the two to strike the other, more particularly from the state in which the plaintiff' was at the time, as he would have been as likely to have struck the table as anything else. Tho Court ordered the money to bo returned to the plaintiff, which was accordingly done, and awarded lum 2s. 6d. costs. [After tho case was concluded, the plaintiff handed to us a cheque for the £5, to be forwarded to Dunedin on behalf of the Benevolent Institution, which has been done.] Civil, CASE. Henry France v. James P. Baker. —Claim for £30 15b., amount of a dishonored bill, reduced to £20. Judgment for plaintiff for the amount, and costs. Tuesday, August 23rd. Robert Sinclair, for being drunk, and having been several times previously convicted—a very disorderly person—was sentenced to one month's imprisonment. Wednesday, August 24th. CIVII, OASES. Jane Nelson v. Jas. P. Baker.—Judgment for plaintiff, £20, and costs. Hood and Shennan v. same. —Judgment for £12 10s. 3d. Croker and M'Leod v. same.—Judgment for £20.