MAGISTERIAL.

Patea Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 974, 20 December 1882, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

PATEA—YESTERDAY. Before Dr Croft and R. 0. Tenncnt Esqrs., J.P.’s. DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. Ebenezer Dixon was .charged with tho above offence and pleaded guilty. Sergeant Donovan stated that the accused.is a tailor by trade and visits Patea periodicalty to work at Adams’. Wjien he takes drink it makes him very excited. Witness found him yesterday lying in Bgmont street and had to procure the assistance of a trap to cqnve}’ him to the lock-up. Witness further stated that Dixon was paid £3 5s on Saturday evening and. that when arrested ho only had 4s 6d in his possession. Fined 5s or in default 24 hours imprisonment. Sergeant Donovan here asked that an order should be made by the Bench to take 2s from the 4s 6d found on Dixon to pay the owner of the trap for conveying him (Dixon) to the lock-up. The order ■ was made as requested. CIVIL CASES. Patterson v Proctor Downes and Co. Mr Hamerton for plaintiff, MiBarton for defendants. This was a case in which J. J. Patterson (he purchaser of the bankrupt estate of W. Williams sought to recover the sum of £l2 10s alleged to he due to the latter for services rendered bj' negotiating with the natives for the purchase of a quantity of fascines, stakes, etc. The evidence of the defendants had been taken in Dunedin. • John James Patterson stated that he lived at Patea. He was the plaintiff in the present case. That was the deed under which he bought the bankrupt estate of W. Williams (deed produced). Among the book debts was one of £l2 10s. He had never received any of the money. W. Williams said that when Downes Proctor and Co. obtained the railway contract, Mr Downes came to him and asked him to negotiate with the natives for a number of fascines. Witness went up the river several times in company with Mr Downes. The number of bundles cut was about 3000. Witness did not do anything be3'ond the interpreting and negotiating for the purchase of the fascines. J. Williams, son of tho last witness, corroborated the above statement. George Broughton, a native, stated he remembered the sale of fascines. Mr Downes was the person who purchased them. Mr Williams simply spoke for him (Mr Downes). Cross-examined : It was not Mr Williams who bought the fascines. Mr Downes paid the natives. Mr Williams never paid any money to the natives for the fascines. Neither Mr Williams or his sons cut fascines. Witness did not recollect tho price the natives got. In reply to a question from the Bench, Mr Williams stated .that the natives did not cut the fascines, and that tho money the}- obtained was simply a royalty. William Williams jimr. stated that he recollected a quantity of fascines being brought down for the railway works Witness went up the river three times in company with Mr Downes. Witness was never emplo} r ed by Proctor Downes & Co., and never received any money to hand over to the natives. Witness never worked on tho fascines. Ho knew that no money in connection with the fascines ever came into his family. Cross-examined ; The fascines came down in drays, but witness did not know to whom the drays belonged. George Tnke remembered cutting fascines up (ho river about 2 years ago for about six weeks. Mr Downes employed witness and two other men. Mr Downes gave them all the information as regards the fascines, and paid thorn. Witness left the job because it would’nt paj T . They were getting 4£d per bundle for the fascines. Mr Downes himself offered them Id per bundle more if they would stay. Henry Davis said he remembered a quantity of fascines coming down in drays about two years ago. Mr Downes wanted witness to go up and make arrangements with the Maories. Mr Downes asked him to tender for supplying fascines on the ground, but said his price (2s a bundle) was too high. Mr Downes said he wanted a large number of slakes. Witness told him to go to Mr Williams as he (witness) was too busy at the time to undertake the work of negotiation. The Court here adjourned till 2 o’clock, and upon resuming the evidence of Tauroa was taken, but the witness was too intoxicated to allow of his being crossexamined. After counsel had made a few remarks upon the case, judgment was given for the plaintiff for the amount claimed with £7 2s costs. Clay v. De Banks. —Mr Hamerton applied for an adjournment till the sth proximo, which was granted.^