RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 236, 6 January 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Gisborne, Saturday, Jasuary 2, 1875. [Before W. K. Nesbitt, Esq., R.M.,] ASSAULT. Daniel Maher, was charged with having assaulted John O’Meara in t.he public streets, and with having used abusive and threatening language. Mr. Wilson, defendant’s counsel, asked that an apology might be received and the case withdrawn. Mr. O’Meara would consent to the assault being withdrawn on condition that defendant paid £1 to a poor man who was then asking assistance from the Court, ou account of his sickness, the other case he would leave to the Bench. The charges were withdrawn, on that condition, and all expenses being paid by defendant. Tuesday, J anuary 5. GRAHAM AND UREN V. W. 8. GREENE. Mr. Wilson for plaintiffs. This was an action brought to recover possession of 16 sheep, or their value £B. John Uren, sworn states: lama partner with Mr. Graham in the lease of the Patutahi Block. Mr. Greene admitted having had some sheep with Mr. Neill’s ear-mark. By defendant: You gave me a bill of 26 sheep shorn by you. You said there were some among them the ear-mark of which had been altered to Neill's earmark. Andrew Graham, sworn states : I had a conversation with Mr. Greene relativeto the sheep in question. I understand that Mr. Greene took away 16 sheep, which ho said he claimed because the ear-mark had been altered, and he said he believed there were more on our. run that had been served in the same way. He claimed payment for 25 sheep of which we admitted nine, and. gave him credit for them. By the Court: We admitted the nine because they had Mr. Greene’s ear-mark on them. We claim the 16 because we deny the alteration of the ear-mark. W. Ross, sworn slates : I am shepherd to plaintiffs. I was present at the mustering of the sheep purchased from Neill. Mr. Greene was also there. He told Mr. Uren that 12 of his sheep were missing. Mr. Neill disputed three of the sheep, which left nine, to be accounted for. By defendant: The sheep got out of the yard at night, but I could not swear that all the same sheep were got in next day. William Neill, sworn states: I sold 1,360 sheep to plaintiffs, they were all ear-marked previously with my brand. I never altered those ear-marks. W. S. Greene, sworn stated in defence, that he was present at each drafting of Messrs. Graham and Uren’s sheep. I had a mustering subsequently of my own sheep, out of which I picked 25 that had been shorn by plaintiffs, two of those had had the ear-mark altered. I have since seen two more sheep on my run with their ear-mark on them. I claim for the wool of 26 sheep. I make no claim for the careases. The ease was adjourned for one week, costs to follow' cause. CHARLES MACK, Appeared on information to answer the charge of Constable Stanhope for having disposed of certain goods by lottery, contrary to the 17th clause of the “ Auckland Municipal Police Act, 1866.” Mr. Wilson appeared for the defendant, and admitted the charge, but pleaded that having seen other instances of lotteries having taken place in Gisborne, he thought he would be allowed to hold them as well. The Bench took a lenient view of the case, as it was the first instance of the kind, and would inflict a nominal fine of Is and costs. BATES V. BURKE. Claim £1 8s balance of wages, as cook on board of the schooner Opotiki. Judgment for amount claimed and costs. WINTER V. HOGAN. Claim £l6 19s value of arms, accoutrements, fines, and subscriptions, due by defendant to the Gisborne Rifle Volunteer Corps. Defendant, sworn states : I joined the Gisborne Volunteer Corps in July, 1873. I paid 30s for the uniform, which was taken from my possession, together with the arms during my absence. Captain Porter gave me leave of absence. I returned about two mouths since. The fines were recorded during the time I was away. I could not attend parades after my return because my arms and uniform were taken from me. Lieutenant Daly said that defendant had applied for leave, which he promised to grant on conditions of the arms, fines, and subscriptions due by him being paid. His worship said he should like to read tire Volunteer Regulations and would give judgment to-day. CARROL V. HAMAONA. Claim £3 damages done to a certain filly the property of the plaintiff, taken without his authority by the defendant. Mr. Cuff for plaintiff.

Defendant pleaded not indebted. Plaintiff, sworn stated, that he was at Mr. Green’s, and saw defendant with the horse ; he requested him to come off the animal, but he refused at first to do so. I did not give him permission to ride the horse. I took it forcibly from him. Defendant says on oath: The horse was given to me by Wi Kaipuki to break in. Judgment for plaintiff £2 and costs. BUCHANAN V. BROOKS. Claim £3 3s 2d, goods supplied. Case called. No appearance of defendant. Plaintiff having proved his claim, judgment was given for amount claimed. MARTIN V. LACHLAN. Claim £4 10s wages due. No appearance of either party. Case struck out. WEBB V. O. GOLDSMITH. Claim £9 15s 9d, goods supplied. Judgment for amount with costs.