RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT—CARLYLE.

Patea Mail, Volume III, Issue 242, 4 August 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT—CARLYLE.

(Before C. E. Wray, Esq., 11.M., ami 11. F. Christie, Esq., J.l’.) Thursday, August 2. Frederick Wallett (a German) was brought up on a charge of feloniously ami unlawfully setting lire to a dwelling in his possession at Waverlcy. Mr Filzhorbert, of Wanganui, appeared for the prosecution, ami .Mr Borlase for the defence. Air Knight was sworn as interpreter. Mr Fitzhorbert opened the case by relating the circumstances under which the lire took place, and stated that the evidence was in the nature of admissions made by prisoner to various persons, both before and after the lire—he being actually in Wanganui at the time the fire took place. Prisoner had stated that he could make a candle of certain materials which would burn so long as to enable him to be in Wanganui before it would set tire to combustibles placed near to it.

The evidence went to show that the prisoner had arranged purchase of land and had obtained the timber for building purposes from Mr Hogg, which had not been paid for, and that an insurance of ThOO had been effected on the premises, though still unfinished. The prisoner had been drinking, was in the habit of usingviolent and threatening- language when in liquor, and had made a number of state incuts, which taken in connection with the peculiar position in which he stood regarding the property, lead to his being suspected and afterwards charged with setting fire to the premises. Witnesses were brought forward who corroborated the statements made by Mr Fitzherhert in his opening address. Tno case occupied the Court all day. A number of witnesses, including the following, were examined Jacob Klopsli, Jacob Mculey, George Knowles, Samuel Caldwell, John Burrows. D. M. Hogg appeared as Insurance agent. The Counsel for the defence (Mr Borlase) after the evidence for the prosecution had been taken, stated that the evidence was clearly insufficient to commit the prisoner for trial, and he would therefore not dohiy the time of the Court by calling witnesses, unless the Bench was of opinion that it would be necessary to do so. After a short consultation, the Bench decided that sufficient evidence had not been brought forward to warrant a committal, and the prisoner was therefore discharged.

Friday, August 3. [Before C. E. Wray, Esq., R.M.] Debt.— D. M. Hogg v W. Creighton. Claim, £l9 Gs lid, for goods supplied. Plaintiff stated that he wished to alter the bill of particulars, as 11s too much had been charged. Defendant admitted owing a portion of the amount claimed, but argued that the R.M. should allow a nonsuit, in consequence of the hill of particulars not being attached to the summons. The plaintiff Was willing to allow the correction to be made, but the E.M. ruled that a notice to that effect would have to be lodged with the Clerk of the Court, previous to the hearing. A non-suit was granted, with costs £1 12s. Defendant applied for personal expenses, for loss of time, which the R.M. refused to grant. Promissory Note. —D. M. Hogg v A. Hutchinson. Claim £23 3s 7d, for goods supplied and on promissory note dishonored. Plaintiff being unable to produce the promissory note the case was

adjourned until two o’clock to give plaintiff time to obtain tiie promissory noteOn the court re-assembling judgment was given by the R.M. for the amount claimed and costs.