RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 47, 26 April 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, April 24. [Before W, K. Nesbitt, Esq., R.M.] Daly v. Clrrol.—Debt £6 10s. Judgment £3 to he paid at once and the balance with costs in a month. Daly v. Fleet.—-Debt £5 15s. Judgment confessed. Defendant promised to _pay on arrival of money from the South. Plaintiff agreed to wait a month. Judgment accordingly. Daly v. Bryant.—Debt £l4 Ils Id. Indebtedness denied. Plaintiff sworn handed an agreement to the Bench, purporting to be an arrangement to supply refreshments to the Native School treat, given last September. Defendant contended that he only acted for the School Committee, liaving been authorized te do so by Captain Porter as a member of the committee. —Captain Porter being sworn, said : Mr. Bryant made an estimate of the cost and led the committee to believe there would be a surplus, but no -official action was taken, or sanction given for incurring the expense, and denied the liability. Defendant said that only verbal authority was given, and produced a statement of account as laid before the committee which showed-only a balance of £3 4s due. Judgment for plaintiff, £lO 5s being amount of orders held by the defendant. At the conclusion of the case Mr. Cuff, on behalf of Mr. Bryant, applied for a re-hearing, inasmuch os Dr. Nesbitt was a member of the Native School Committee, and was not competent to hear the case. We believe an arrangement has been made to settle the matter out of Court. Goldsmith v. Williams.—Debt £5 10s. Judgment confessed, The defendant gave an order on Mr. Johnson in satisfaction of amount. Read v. Benson.—Mr. Cuff for plaintiff. Claim £lO for damages done to a building by defendant putting it from a sledge on to piles, so as to prevent its removal. —A. F. Hardy, sworn states : I know the agreement produced, made by R. D. Mackey to sell' the house te plaintiff. It was made after the defendant was declared a bankrupt. The house originally belonged to Mackey’s mother. It was au ordinary sledge house.—H. E. Webb, sworn, states: I am trustee in the bankrupt estate of Mr. W. Benson. I have never given Benson authority to do anything to the house in question. I de not consider I have any authority over it, as at present advised. The house is built on sledges, and I consider I have no authority as trustee to prevent its removal. Mr. Benson lias applied to me for protection, and I regret that I could not give it to him. What he has done, he did without consulting me.—J. Forbes, sworn, proved to the cost of removing the house as it stands and considered it would be about £27. It would cost about £8 to put the house on sledges again. He had not seen the house in its present state. —T. Goldsmith, sworn : I have seen the house. One of the sledges is cut &wsy. Benson told me he had done it himself. By defendant: The verandah is nailed to the piles. I went to take the house away, but was prevented from doing so by the constabulary. By Mr. Cuff: The house, as it originally stood, could have been drawn away without injury.—W. Benson, sworn, states: The house was on sledges; the verandah on piles. When I got judgment in the District Court, I told Tarr, who was living in the house at the time, that he must go out, as I wanted it myself. I consider the house is mine, on -account of Judge Roclifort’s decision. The trustee would not give me protection, and as I must have a place te put my family in, I must protect myself. —Judgment for plaintiff, £B. Benson v. Steel.—Mr. Cuff for defendant. This case arose out of the previous one. Plaintiff sues for £5 damages done to the house in which he resides. Mr. Cuff contended that his client had acted only in accordance with instructions received from Captain Read, the owner of the property. Judgment for defendant. Johnson v. Karaitiana Taro. — Claim £lO 2s, money advanced on the purchase of land, which the defendant neglected to conveyJudgment for plaintiff £9 2s. Kerr <v. Stevenson.—Mr. Cuff for defendant. Claim £lO for killing a dog.—Keke sworn, states: On the 2nd April he heard that the dog in question had been killed at the Toroa Pa.—By Mr. Cuff: I consider the dog worth £lO because it gets food for me, and will not destroy sheep. I bought it from Shuker and paid 30s for it. It was a pup at the time. It had never killed sheep. The dog was my own. —Te Peka sworn, states : Four of us went for food and the dog followed us, and shortly after I saw .the defendant killing the .dog, by beating it with a stick.—By Mr. Cuff: -Defendant never asked plaintiff to keep the dog tied up, because it had killed Mr. Hardy’s sheep. I know what the consequences of perjury are. I saw defendant kill tiie dog.—Emi Popota sworn, states: Defendant killed the dog. I did not see hire kill it. After hearing the dog howl, I saw defendant ride off.—By Mr. Cuff: There were twenty or thirty natives present. Four of us went for food. The dog followed us. The dog was absent about half an hour. I never heard defendant say the dog had killed sheep.—Hare Matenga sworn, -states: I saw defendant kill fhe dog with a stick. He was on foot at the time. I did not speak to defendant.—By Mr. Cuff: There were four of us together. We saw defendant mount his horse again. He killed the dog with a stick as thick as my Arm.—Mr Cuff, on behalf of defendant, admitted killing the Bog, but it was by poison and not with a stick as falsely sworn to. The dog was found killing the sheep and it was poisoned in self-defence on Mr. Hardy’s land.—Keke re-called: The defendant told me if I did not keep the dog away from killing the sheephe would kill it.—William Stevenson sworn, states: I am looking after Me. Hardy’s sheep. The dog is worthless. I killed the dog at my where and not at Toroa. I saw the dog eating the sheep, but did not see it kill any. I poisoned some meat, and saw the dog lying on the road dead. I -never struck the dog. I could never get at it. I told plaintiff I would shoot the dog, and he said, u If you do, I will shoot you,”—Constable Mills sworn, dqx»ed te

liaving seen a black and white dog on ths road side, the day after Stevenson told him he had laid poison, and in all respects the circumstances •co-incide with wliat defendant says.—-The Bench • considered that the dog had not been killed as described, but reserved judgment until next Thursday. Tamati T auto hi v. Coopeb.—Claim £8 10s for a horse lent to defendant to go to Tuparoa, which was killed and never returned.—Mr. Cooper sworn, stated: He borrowed the horse on the understanding that it was Bopata’s, and had given him a bottle of brandy in satisfaction for its loss. Judgment for plaintiff, who applied for immediate execution. Villkbs v. MgCoxnachik.—’Defendant appeared on a judgment summons to prove why lie had not satisfied a judgment of this Court. He said he had no means of paying the money, but would consent to pay 2s 6d a week. Judgment deferred. T. Goldsmith laid an information on oath against A. Dalzicll, the Poundkeeper at Makaraka, for having refused to deliver im- , pounded cattle on demand.