RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 994, 3 November 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, GISBORNE.

Tuesday, November Ist, 1881. [Before J. H. Fisher, W. Common, Esqs., J.P.’b, and Paora Paeau, Assessor.] W. Adair v. Hapi Kiniha.—Claim £Q 4s. 6d., balance of judgment summons. Mr. Brassey for plaintiff, and Mr. W. L. [Rees for the defendant. The defendant stated the reason he had not paid the judgment summons was that he had given the plaintiff a horse, which was .to be left with him as security. He understood that Mr. Adair sold the horse for £7. By Mr. Rees : He wanted £l6 for the horse ; he did not give Mr. Adair authority to sell it. Wm. Adair stated he recovered a judgment against Hapi Kiniha. Hapi Kiniha gave him an order to get possession of the horse. He sold the horse for £7, which was a good price. The defendant was informed of the sale, and promised to pay the balance. By Mr. Rees : He did not consider authority was necessary. He sold the horse to Mr. Knox. The defendant was perfectly satisfied at the sale. He (the defendant) gave the horse as part payment. Mr. Rees submitted that no order could be made for imprisonment, because no fraud was disclosed as against the debtor. If judgment creditors took securities they must rest by their acts. Mr. Brassey contended that Mr. Rees had misinterpreted the provisions of the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt Act. He submitted that the defendant had a remedy by suing Mr. Adair if the horse was of less value than what it was sold for. The Bench ordered that the defendant pay the amount of the claim within 14 days or in default to be imprisoned for 21 days. Kennedy and Bennett v. Thelwall and Co.—Claim £ll 145., for lighterage of cattle to the steamer, but which were unable to be put on board. Mr. Einn for plaintiffs. Mr. Brassey, who appeared for defendants, said in view of an action pending against the ILS.S. Co., that he would not enter a defence to the action. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff. Breach of Slaughtering Act. Samuel Roe v. W. Harvey.—Mr. Nolan for com plainant and Mr. Brassey for defendant. Samuel Roe deposed : He resided at Ormond, and carried on the business of a butcher. He saw that on the 15th October Harvey had no meat in the shpp. He went to Waerenga-a-hika and then to Ormond. He then saw two sheep hanging up in the shop. By Mr. Brassey: He laid the information for his own protection. He went to the Inspector but he declined to' lay the information. Breingan’s is not a licensed slaughterhouse, Heteraka deposed • He saw defendant at Breingan’s woolshed killing sheep on Saturday, Oct. 15. After killing them he put them in a cart and took them away. Mr. Brassey for defendant admitted that the sheep were killed, but there was no proof before the Court that they were for sale and barter. Besides,

Mr. Roe had no authority to lay the the information. He would prove to the' Court that the defendant bought the sheep dead. P. Breingan deposed that the sheep were slaughtered for him. He had the skins. He sold the dead meat. Harvey took the carcases away. The Bench were of opinion that there was an intention on the part of the defendant to evade the Act The defendant was fined 20s. and costs.