Patea R. M. Court.

Patea Mail, 5 March 1881, Page 3

Patea R. M. Court.

Friday. before Mr 0. A. Wray, U.M. LARCENY OF A SADDLE. James Taylor, of Kakaramea was brought up on remand charged with stealing a saddle in April last, the property of C. Dasent, Patea. Mr Hamertmi appeared for the defence.

Cyril Dasent said : I was at Axup’s farm in April last, and placed my saddle in the woolshed, which was not locked during the night. Next morning the saddle was missing. I now identify the saddle produced as the same. I was told that the prisoner was one of those carting gravel for the Waverley railway. I heard in January that my saddle had been seen at Oeo or at Prosser’s stable, Hawera.

L. Fitzsimmons, carpenter, Oeo, said : Last July I saw the prisoner coming from Opunaki, and he offered me a saddle for sale, saying it was valued at £1 to £B, and that as he had sold the horse he didn’t want the saddle I gave him £3 5s for the saddle. I identify the one in Court as the same. Several persons were present. Hone Pihama, Oeo, (speaking in English) said : I know the prisoner and Fitzsimmons, and was present when the prisoner sold the saddle about the 19th of last July. I recognise the saddle produced as the same.

Sergeant Donovan said : on the 11th January I received information as to the prisoner selling the supposed saddle. I asked the prisoner afterwards if he had sold a saddle in the direction of Hawera, and he said he had not. I asked on another day the same question, and he again denied it, and denied also that he had sold a horse. A fortnight ago at Kakaramea I asked him again, and he still denied selling a saddle. I arrested him last Monday, on a warrant. He said he knew nothing about the saddle. By Mr Hamerton : 1 am not aware that the prisoner has filed a declaration of insolvency. Mr Hamerton ; I don’t propose calling any evidence for the prisoner. The prisoner was committed for trial at the District Court in Patea. Bail was allowed, himself in £IOO, and two sureties in £SO each.

CIVIL CASES. RATE CASES. Waverley Town Board v. Winchcombe was a claim for rates. Defendant did not appear. 11. F. Mason said the Board claimed £1 for rates. Judgment for amount with costs. Waverley Town Board v. Fyfe was a claim for £4 ss, rates due. Defendant objected to the rate and the valuation as excessive. He had not received notice of the sitting of the Assessment Court. Judgment for the amount, with costs. CLAIM FOR A DRAY. Vincent v. Scanlan was a claim for £9, balance for part of a dray sold. No appearance. Mr Hamerton was for plaintiff. Defendant had paid £l. Judgment for £9 and costs.

PATEA MAIL ARREARS. A. Black v. Hamilton, Wanganui, was a claim for 30s, subscription to the Patea Mail, of which plaintiff was formerly lessee. No appearance. Judgment for amount with costs. Mr Partington, solicitor, Hawcra, was sued for £2 14s 6d, advertising and subscription. Judgment by default, with costs. W. H. Forder, Wanganui, was sued for an advertisement, £2. Defendant had written saying he held a receipt for the pa3mient. Plaintiff said he was asked to produce the receipt to an agent, but did not do so. Judgment for amount, with costs. W. Wilkie, Wanganui, was sued for advertising a horse, £4. Judgment by default, with costs. NEIGHBOR’S DISPUTES. Quinlivan v. Gillighan (settlers near Patea) was a claim for £35 17s, the balance of a promissory note, and for a number of items extending back to 1877. The defendant put in numerous items as a set-off Mr Hamerton appeared for plaintiff. Jas. Quinlivan said: In 1877 the defendant lodged with me, and 1 have charged him from October to December, Another item was for a horse and saddle for a week, 30s. In ’7B I kept 27 head of his cattle for a week. He is charged for four months’ lodging in that year. The £lO is balance of a promissory note. I do not admit the items he charges against me as a set-off, except a few shillings. Patrick Gillighan, defendant, said he did not admit the claim for board and lodging in arroar. He had memoranda in his pocket book that he paid £3 12s in December, 1877 ; on the 17th July, 1878,

£1 16 ; August 17th, 16 ; Sept. 20th, £1 16s ; and October 161 hj, £1 16s. The total items of his own cross account amounted to £3O 15s. He disputed most of the plaintiff’s items claimed for, and said there would have been no case for the Court if the plaintiff had not conceived a spite against him. J. Reuss (Spaniard) said he heard Mr Quinlivan complain of MrGillighan going to Napier in 1878 without paying anything for his lodging.

The Magistrate said the evidence was very meagre, there being only one man’s oath against another. Must allow the full amount claimed for board. Making certain deductions as a set-off, he reduced the plaintiff’s claim to £3B 10s. The defendant’s set-off he reduced to £ll Bs, leaving a balance of £22 2s in favor of the plaintiff, with costs. He said it was a pity that neighbors could not settle differences of this kind, without raking up such claims against each other. DISPUTED DELIVERY. J. Gibson v. Jas. Malcolm was a claim for £l2 18s sd. Defendant had paid into Court £6 11s 9d as a sufficient payment, and he disputes! other items, saying he had never ordered and never received these goods. J, Gibson said most of the goods were ordered in the shop by the defendant or his foreman, his engineer being also present. There was an error in one small item. AH the other goods had been ordered by defendant’s men, and duly supplied. Mr Marks, assistant, deposed to booking Mr Malcolm’s order at the time, and executing it. Jas. Malcolm, defendant, said he had no knowledge of certain items. He did not order any goods personally. The insertion cloth and guage glasses charged for were of no use to him, and had not been ordered.

Mr Marks, recalled, said the defendant’s engineer ordered the disputed items on the 14th October, and on the Ist November the engineer and another man called at the shop, and took with them the articles previously ordered —three guage glasses; packing, insertion cloth, and rings. These were the items now in dispute. They were certainly delivered to the engineer. Thos. Turley, foreman, said he did not give instructions for the disputed goods, which were not wanted. None of the men had instructions to get goods except through him. Case adjourned for a week, the Bench considering the evidence very inconclusive. CLAIM AGAINST A PUBLICAN. J. Gibson v. C. Dempsey, Waverley, was a claim for £ll 19s 2d. Judgment by default, with costs. CLAIM FOR WAGES. S. Barraclough v. Gowland, butcher, was a claim for wages. Defendant put in as a set-otf a claim for £1 10s, being the value of meat not accounted for by the plaintiff as his assistant. Mr Adams was for plaintiff, Mr Hamerton for defendant. The claim was for £5 12s lOd, wages at £2 5s per week, and defendant had paid into Court that amount, less £1 10s for meat supplied, and also 3s 2d for half a day overcharged. Mr Gowland, defendant, said he delivered meat to his assistant to take into the country for sale. On three occasions the assistant sold altogether meat amounting to £1 13s 2d, at fourpence a pound, and had not returned that money,nor was it yet known to whom the moat was sold.

S. Barraclough, plaintiff, said he served the customers from the cart as usual on the three occasions in question, and he accounted for all he sold. The meat was not weighed before being put into the cart, to his knowledge, nor was he aware that the returns were weighed. Mr Gowland should have weighed the meat before him, to keep a square reckoning. Mr Adams, for the plaintiff, submitted that the only charge which could be made against the assistant in not accounting for every pound of meat would be a charge of negligence. That would not stand good as a set-off in law against a claim for wages. Mr Hamerton contended that the meat had been accurately weighed on the three occasions, and it rested with the assistant to account for the weight that was deficient on each occasion when he returned with the cart. Mr Hamerton could certainly say that other 'proceedings would have to follow the present case. The Bench decided that the set-off could not bo maintained against a claim for wages. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs. £3 19s 8d had been paid into Court.