RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Patea Mail, Volume 1, Issue 8, 8 May 1875, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, May G. (Before Major Turner, E.M.) MONTHLY SITTING. LETT V MORTON. To recover £4 4s Cd, for goods supplied. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount, with costs. LLOYD V WULTON. To recover £9 11-s 6d, for board, horse feed, and cash lent. Mr Fitzhcrbert for plaintiff. W. Lloyd deposed that bo was one of the proprietors of the Ivakaramea Hotel, and on his presenting defendant with an account for the articles sued for, obtained a cheque, which, after presentation at the Bank, had been returned to him marked “ not sufficient funds.” Judgment for amount claimed, with costs of court, including counsel’s fee. Immediate execution to issue. WRAY V TREWEEK. A claim of £3 10s, the value of a revolver stolen from defendant during his membership of the Carlyle Light Horse. The Court remarked that an application had been made by defendant for an adjournment. Captain Wray stated that he had brought Treweck’s case before the Government, and it was decided that Treweck should pay the value of the revolver. The Bench stated it had written to the Defence Minister on the subject, and, "believed it would liave some weight. Adjourned till 3rd June, defendant agreeing to pay costs. F. jCguire v tokamatk (a native.) To recover 15s, being the value of three chemises and six yards of print, supplied by plaintiff’s assistant. Constable Wallace acted as native interpreter. Defendant pleaded not indebted, having paid for the goods on delivery. F. McGuire deposed that his assistant had informed him that during his absence, a native had obtained the goods sued for, and decamped without paying for them. He searched the various hotels, but could not find defendant. Some time after defendant came to Carlyle, was recognised, and charged with the debt. James Connelly, sworn —I am in the employment of plaintiff. The native came to the store during Mr McGuire’s absence, and purchased three chemises and some print, value 15s, and left the goods on the counter, remarkingthathe was going over to Odgcrs’, and ’would pay for them on his return. When defendant came back, ho purchased two saddle straps, and while paying pulled out a lot of notes. Witness did not like to ask the native for payment for the chemises, for fear of offending him. The Bench—Yon must not be so “milk and watery” for the future. By defendant—Why did yon allow me to take the goods away without paying ? Witness—l went up stairs to serve a lady, expecting yon to remain in the shop till my return, but during my absence you left with the goods, without paying. By the Bench—When did you first report the circumstances to Mr McGuire. Witness —The same evening. Defendant deposed that he visited Mr McGuire’s store, with the view of buying some print, and seeing young Connelly behind the counter, inquired the price per yard. Connelly answered Is. Witness agreed to give lOd. He purchased six yard of the print and three chimeses, in all amounting to 15s. Connelly wrapped the 'goods in a piece of paper, and placed them oh the counter. Ho informed Connolly that he was going over to Odgcrs’, and on Ids return he would pay for the goods. On his return he tendered a one pound note and two half-crowns to Connelly in payment of the goods. By the Bench—Why did you not pay for the goods before leaving the store to go to the hotel ? Witness —I thought it better to pay when I took the goods away. Cross-examined by Mr McGuire—l purchased the chemises and the print at the same lime. I did not go to see Mr Parris at Daniels’ Hotel after buying the print. I did not make two separate payments for the chemises and print. I paid for both iMgethiT. I hr,sight the }>;tr< --I outside,

and finding that I had nothing to strap the parcel on the ‘saddle, I returned to Mr McGuire’s store, and purchased two saddle straps, for which 1 paid 2s. I purchased the goods before sun set. The lamps were not lit. The goods were served over the right-hand counter as you enter the store. Defendant wished to call a Maori witness, who he stated was prepared to swear that he saw defendant hand Connelly £1 5s for Lire goods. Mr McGuire objected to the examination of this witness, as lie had not been snbpcenod by defendant. It was no doubt very convenient for defendant to secure the serxiccs of a volunteer, who perhaps ■was prepared to swear to order ; and moreover, this native had been allowed to remain -within the precincts of the Court. The Bench overruled the objection, and stated that the Maoris could not he expected to be as well up as Europeans in the correct course to pursue to conduct their cases.

The Maori witness, on being sworn, stated that lie was not in company with defendant when he purchased the goods ; but, before returning home, he accompanied defendant to McGuire’s stoyc, and saw him give the young man behind the counter £1 ss. The defendant yskoa Connelly if he was going to “ shout.” By the Bench—What do you mean by “shout ?” Witness —Shout rum. By the Bench —Can you positively swear that you saw witness put down £1 6s. Witness—Yes. Mr McGuire considered it useless to ask the “ volunteer witness” any questions. The Bench, in giving judgment, remarked that the preponderance of evidence was in favour of the native. It was a great pity to see such a young boy as Connelly placed in such a prominent position in a store, and receiving large sums of money. The two natives swore distinctly that the boy received the money. It was tlie duty of the boy to see that the native paid the money before allowing the goods to be removed. In future, the Bench trusted that the natives would be more careful in their dealings with European storekeepers, by taking a receipt for all goods purchased. The judgment would be for defendant, without costs. Mr McGuire remarked had the native been a European, he should have occupied the prisoner's dock, instead of figuring in the position of defendant. The Bench—That would have been the proper course for yon to have pursued. Mr McGuire stated that he had requested Sergeant Whelan to take the native in charge, but he refused. The Bench asked Sergeant Whelan if he declined to take the native in charge. (Sergeant 'Whelan your W orsinp. I advised Mr McGuire to summons the native, as no information had been laid against him. 'Mr McGuire—lt was by the advice of the chief officer of police that I acted.

a. W. WILLIAMS V 11. MCCARTHY. i This was an action to recover the sum of j £2 15s, being the amount of injury done to plaintiff’s garden by the trespass of defendant’s cows. Defendant oxprooootl bio wilHng.nG.ss to pay a reasonable amount, but considered that plaintiff had over-estimated the damage done by his cows. I Plaintiff described the nature of the I damage, at some length. j W. Williams, called by defendant, do-! posed that he considered 15s would amply ! satisfy all damage which plaintiff’s garden | sustained, but remarked that he was not a professional gardner. The Court reserved judgment till the following day. D. WILSON V H. WRIGHT. To recover the sum of 8s Gil, for shearing thirty-four sheep, at the rate of 25s per 100. Mr Fitzherbcrt, who appeared for the defendant, pleaded that the plaintiff was guilty of a breach of contract, and contended that such conduct should not be permitted. Plaintiff swore that he had been employed bv defendant to shear sheep at the rate of 25s per 100. On accepting the engagement, lie distinctly informed defendant "that ho could only stay for the one day, as he had another place to go to the | following morning. Defendant remarked | that it did not matter, and accepted his i services under those terms. I Cross-examined by Mr Fitzhcrbert —I shore thirty-four, and then left defendant to go to other employment. I distinctly swear that I engaged for one clay only, and to shear at the rate of 25s per 100. I left Wright with a lot of unsheared lambs, believing that I had performed my engagement, Mr Fitzhcrbert addressed the Court, and stated that the only object his client had in resisting the claim was to secure protection to settlers against pei-sons of this character deserting their employment, and leaving their employers in a fix at such an important time when shearing was being carried on. The Bench considered that the plaintiff had committed a breach of contract, as he should have shorn the 100, and gave judgment for defendant, with costs of Court, professional fee, and expenses of a witness, amounting in all to £2 12s. TAI‘LIN AND MUIR V FOSTER. Claim for £lO 12s. The summons not been having been returned, it was enlarged till next Court day, June 3. CORNWALL V RANKIN. The Bench stated that this case had been mutually settled, by defendant agreeing to 1 pay £1 per month towards the support of I plaintiff’s illegitimate child. An order ! would therefore be made for that amount, to be paid through the Court. The Court then adjourned. Friday, May 7. In the case of Williams v. McCarthy, a verdict of .I*l 10s and 10s costs was given.