RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 913, 29 January 1881, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, GISBORNE.

Wednesday, January 26th, 1881. [Before M. Pbice, Esq., R.M.] 9 Mrs. S. DeCosta was charged with committing a breach of the Licensing Act by supplying liquor on Sunday. Constable Farmer sworn deposed to being in the Turanganui Hotel on Sunday morning between 7 and 8 o’clock, and saw a man named Rainbow drinking a pint of beer. Young De Costa said he thought there was no harm in giving him the beer. By the Court: Rainbow is not a traveller, nor did he sleep in the hotel.

J. Rainbow deposed to having had a pint of beer given to him on Sunday morning by young DeCosta. I had the beer because there was no tea ready, r Moss DeCosta gave corroborative testimony. Rainbow did not pay for the beer. Rainbow generally takes his meals at my house on Sundays. Fined in the mitigated penalty of 10s, and costs 7s. fraudulent detention of a letter. William Smith was charged on information laid by the police with having fraudulently detained a letter from the Post Office, addressed to Mrs. W. W. Smith. William Smith, settler, at Waitaria, sworn deposed to the letter produced being addressed to his wife, from Auckland. The envelope is initialled L. S. Miss Shanaghan of Auckland is the writer of the letter. He had given no one authority to get letters for him, or his wife, from the Post Office. He did not receive the letter in Ordinary course. He was sure the letter was written to his wife. He did not know the prisoner. J. Shrimpton Postmaster at Gisborne deposed to remembering prisoner calling at the Post Office on Saturday the 22nd inst., and obtaining the letter produced. T asked him particularly if he was sure the letter was for him, and he replied eagerly that it was. He asked if there were any le+ters for “W. Smith.” The letter is addressed to “ Mrs. W. W. Smith.” Prisoner did not return the letter to the Post Office, as he should have done. By prisoner: I think it was after dinner, when you came for letters. I told you the letter was addressed to Mrs W. W. Smith, when you enquired if there were any for W. Smith. You assured me that the letter was for you. I felt doubtful about giving you the letter. You said “W. W ” were your initials. By the Court: Letters similarly addressed have been coming for some time.

Constable Farmer deposed to the arrest of prisoner on suspicion of stealing a watch, on Saturday night, the 22nd instant, and taking him to the lock-up. Prisoner handed over what money he had, and a letter which I recognise as the one now produced in Court. He delivered the letter to me reluctantly. It was opened at the time. On reading the letter I found it could not belong to prisoner. Subsequently I enquired and found that he had stolen the letter, and charged him with the offence. He said he had taken it in mistake and meant to seal it np and take it back. This was at 11 o’clock at night. Prisoner signed the property sheet at the police station “W. Smith,” not “W. W. Smith.” He hesitated giving up the letter, which caused suspicion, and I read the letter. By the prisoner: You did not tell me that you had taken the letter to the Post Office and found it closed, and did not know whether to put it under the door or not. J. Shrimpton re-called: The Post Office was not closed until 5 o’clock on the day in question. The letter was delivered to the prisoner early after 2 o’clock on that day. I think so, from the amount of work I did afterwards. Prisoner called no witnesses, and after being cautioned in the usual manner, said he had nothing to say. Prisoner was committed to trial at the District Court on Monday next.

Friday, January 28th. r M. G. NASMITH V. W. ADAMS. Mr. Ward (for Mr Rees) for the plaintiff; Mr Brassey and Mr Nolan for the defendant. Claim £2O 17s, for cash advances and goods sold and delivered. The foregoing was a question of disputed account, the defence being that the monies were paid on account of work and labor done, on account of partnership. Judgment for amount claimed with costs. ADAMS V. NASMITH. Claim £5l, for services rendered. Judgment for £6 10s with costs. s. deCosta v. haselmayer. Claim £4 16s for board and lodging. Mr Brassey for plaintiff, Mr Nolan for defendant.

Mrs. DeCosta sworn deposed to being proprietoress of the Turanganui Hotel, and that the defendant and Madame Haselmayer resided at the hotel for 6 days, payment for which has not been paid. By Mr Nolan: Mr Carey arranged with me to bring Professor and Mrs Haselmayer to Gisborne. Telegrams were produced showing the terms on which the engagement was made, one of which was that plaintiff was to provide hotel accommodation at the usual charges, outside the costs of the entertainment. The usual charges are 8 and 10s a day for professionals. Mr. Haselmayer offered me £2 odd in payment in full. He did not offer me £4 odd. He wanted me to pay freight to and from Gisborne, which I refused. I told him rather than have any trouble I would deduct the cost of the dinners, which had been prepared, from the account. I did not agree with anyone that I would settle the account for cartage. I told Burnand that I would see it was all right. By Mr Brassey : It is usual for hptel keepers to see to the payment of cartages &c., on account of their' customers.

By the Court: Payment of freight and cartage was no part of my contract with Mr Carey. For the defence :—

Louis Haselmayer deposed that he and his wife stayed at Mrs DeCosta’s hotel, under arrangement made with Mr Carey. The usual charge for professionals is 5s a day for first class houses, not second class ones. It was understood that the usual charges were to be made.

Memo of agreement put in which the defendant said the plaintiff agreed to, showing that freight to and from Gisborne was part of the agreement. I tendered £4 4s to Mrs DeCosta as payment for the time I had been in the hotel. She then said she would take the £4 4s, but the differences then arose.

S. P. Craig sworn deposed to understanding that the Professor agreed to paying the difference in dispute, on arriving in Wellington if Mr Carey said it was correct. He, the witness, thought Mrs DeCosta waived the present payment on that understanding- . His Worship held that as the Pro. fessor agreed to pay 8s a day, he could not introduce usual charges, which he says are less, as a plea of non.pay. ment; and the tender of £4 4s was sufficient. With regard to the claim for lighterage, the Court held the claim proved, and gave judgment for £4 4s. s. deCosta v. haselmayer. Claim £l2, alleged damage done to a liqueur stand, lent by plaintiff to defendant for the purpose of his entertainment. Plaintiff, sworn, deposed to the lending of the stand, and its being broken on return. On the condition of Mr. Haselmayer becoming responsible for damage, I consented to lending it. There are two small liqueur glasses broken. They cannot be replaced. L. Haselmayer deposed that he put the decanter into the box, and everything was perfectly safe, when he asked a young man waiting in the hotel to take it home. He knew

nothing of the breakage. He came from the country where these glasses were blown, and would guarantee to replace the two broken ones for 6d each. The young man saw that the glasses were sound when he took them away. I don’t object to paying the damage, but I object to pay excessively for such trash. Mr. Moss, assistant to the Professor deposed to seeing the box all right, and heard him ask Hull to take it home, which he did. H. Hull sworn said he was not a paid servant of Mrs. DeCosta. He sometimes received payment for what he did in the hotel. When he took the box, the broken glass was placed inside at the back. By Mr. Nolan : I pay nothing for my lodging. Ido anything about the hotel Mrs DeCosta requires me to do. Mr Nolan contended that the evidence fully bore out the fact that Hull was a servant of the plaintiff; which absolved his client from blame.

Judgment for damages, ss; with costs, £2 2s.