RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4437, 9 June 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

i Tuesday, June 8. (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., R.M.) J PERJURY, s J. Enright was charged by the Inspector 1 of Police under the following circumstances:— * 0. Millward, bailiff, sworn, stated; I I remember the case of Spriggs versus Sheehan f and Gallagher- being tried on the 28th May J last. The prisoner gave evidence in the case, I administered the usual oath. The prisoner, on being asked by the presiding Magistrate if he bad any questions to ask this Witness, declined to do so. Ebenezer Baker, Clerk of the Court, sworn, stated : I am clerk in the Resident Magisj trate’s Court, Wellington. I remember on the 28th May last the case of Spriggs versus Shee--1 ban and Gallagher, charged with robbery with f violence, being heard. The prisoner, John Enright, gave evidence in the case. The following statement by the prisoner was taken 1 down in evidence, and is perfectly correct, it . was:—“ Spriggs bought his bottle of braudy ! after 11 p.m. It was sold to him by Harris. ’ Spriggs paid him in silver. The prisoner , signed this deposition.—John Enright.” , At this stage of the proceedings the Inspector of Police applied for an adjournment in order to procure additional evidence. REFUSING DUTY ON BOARD SHIP. The case against Sam Gibbs, John Smith, Nick Stephens, Augustus Stephens, and John Dehor, of refusing duty on board the Queen of the South, was dismissed as their articles had expired. His Worship pointed out the great hardship which would have happened had Captain Adair sailed for England inste»4-of Lyttelton. SUSPICION OP LUNACY. William Overton and Thomas Overton, both brought up on remand on suspicion lunacy, were dismissed from custody. CIVIL CASKS. G. Biddle v. T. J. Marshall.—Mr. Shaw appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Allan for the defendant. G. Biddle : lam a paintew I was engaged on contract with Mr. Marshall. Mr. Chapman and Mr. Marshall came to the house before it was finished, and saidhe (Mr. Marshall) wished extra varnishing done to tho paper. I told him that fresh paper would havq to be put up, and that it would also have to be lined, which would cause extra work. He (Mr. Marshall) then said, “Do the work, and put a gold border round the dining room." I claim £6 for this work. The material, besides the labor, was supplied by me. That is all I hav e to say. Cross-examined by Mr. Allan : Mr. Maguire engaged me under contract to paper the house according to specification. He paid me for work done under the contract. I did not charge him for this extra work, as it was not in the contract. I was paid on August 15 for contract work. My mate went for payment to Mr. Marshall, who said he had nothing to do with the work. He himself said to me that I was to do the extra work. He did not say he would see the architect. By Mr. Shaw : Mr. Marshall did not object to this extra work. W. Eolles, sworn, stated; lam joint contractor with Mr. Davis. I called on Mr. Marshall for the money due for this extra work. He said the charge was too much. He said to me" on my second visit to him that ho would not pay it at all. The work was faithfully done. I found all the materials. Cross-examined by Mr. Allan : Mr. Marshall did not assign any reason beyond what I

have stated for refusing to pay for the work done. Kennedy McDonald, sworn, stated : I remember being present with Mr. Marshall and Mr. Chapman, and heard the subject of varnishing the walls and putting up a gold border in the diningroom discussed. Mr. Marshall subsequently told me that if the charge had been reasonable he would have paid it. Cross-examined by Mr. Shaw; —I do not say that the order was given, or that it was not given. There was nothing in the conversation inconsistent with such an order being given; ■ The case was adjourned for three weeks, in order to obtain the evidence of Mr. Marshall, who had been ordered by the Government to proceed to Kelson. J. Petford v, K, H. Edwards. —Mr. Gordon Allan appeared for the plaintiff. The case arose from a misunderstanding concerning the erection of some partitions by plaintiff in houses built by defendant. The claim was for £6. Judgment was given for £3 10s., including*the sum of £2 paid into court.