RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1228, 19 December 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

THIS DAY. [■Before M. Price, Esq., R.M.J STEWART V. SCOTT. Claim £2O. Judgment by default and coats. BARRIE V. HARVEY. Claim £1 5s 3d. Judgment by default and costs. WEBB AND MOGRIDGE V. 8. DE COSTA, Claim £7 15s, for printing. John Mogridge, sworn -. I am one of the proprietors of the Standard Newspaper, and am sueing defendant for £7 15s. The charges in this account are in accordance with my charges, When the advertisement referred to in the charge £3 15, was brought to my office. I asked the authority. The advertisement was written by Captain Ken*, from an advertisement written by Mrs De Costa. I cannot swear whether it was signed by her. This is a copy of Mr Scott’s advertisement, Regarding the item £1 7s, I know nothing personally, Regarding Hick’s affair, I never authorised Captain Kerr to enter into any arrangement. He is the Editor of the paper. No order was ever submitted to me. I never authorised Captain Kerr to receive the order. As far as I can recollect the advertisement was made out with a memo at the bottom telling us to put it into shape. Captain Kerr made a copy out. Hicks was paid 15s by our accountant. I never paid Mrs De Costa nor did Webb the other partner. The money was given by Captain Kerr and Hicks himself, not by us. The son brought the advertisement. Kenneth Kerr, sworn : I am Editor of the Standard. I know this case. The item, advertisement £3 15s, re Scott, was brought up to me by young De Costa. I put it into shape. He did not say for whom it was to be inserted. I took it for granted that Mrs De Costa was to be charged. I believe 1 was asked by young De Costa to put a local in referring to it. I do not know Scott in the matter. I know nothing about Crawford’s advertisement. The order produced I know. It is an arrangement between Hicks and the Standard. It was done with a tacit consent. 1 gave the order to the clerk. I spoke to the clerk about not deducting the amounts properly. Mr Mogridge and Mr Webb knew about it. Arthur Webb, sworn, stated : I am the bookkeeper to the Standard. I know the account sued for, £7 15s, The third item re Scott, on July 24th, young DeCosta brought written on a paper, and wanted it put into shape. He did not tell me who to charge it to. I entered to Scott temporarily. After some time I asked young DeCosta who it was to be charged to, and he said “My mother.” I then erased Scott’s name and entered Mrs DeCosta’s. I see item £1 7s re Crawford. The advertisement came from Bain who said he had authority from Mrs DeCosta. I have seen the order produced. Captain Kerr brought it to me, and told me to deduct 15s per week. I did so, and paid to young DeCosta. I have stopped the whole amount, and have the money. £1 8s 6d is now in my hands. Thomas Bain, sworn, on or about October last I was in the employment of the Standard. 1 was passing the hotel and Mrs DeCosta called me in, and gave me an advertisement about Mr Crawford. 1 saw her afterwards, and she said the advertisement was wrong, and said her name ought to have been put in instead of Crawford’s. Mrs DeCosta gave the advertisement simply, I inferred it was to be cha.ged to her. John Crawford, sworn : lam a pianist. I remember an advertisement being put in about myself. 1 never authorised it being put in. Mrs DeCosta put it in for her own good. I was under an engagement to Mrs DeCosta to play the piano. I don't know anything about the advertisement, I had pupil. Busan DeCosta, sworn : I am defendant in this case. With reference to Mr Scott, he and myself wrote out the advertisement and he signed it. My son was the messenger. Re Crawford. Crawford came to me and asked about an advertisement he had in his hand. I gave it to Bain. I had nothing to do with the affair. I never gave my son instructions to tell the Standard to charge Scott’s advertisement to me. Mr Crawford came from Nelson. My arrangement was for 30s per week. Mr Crawford was paid 30s per week by me. Mr Fraser addressed the Bench, urging that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their case beyond the £1 4s which has been paid into Court. Mr Robinson urged that the plaintiffs were entitled to a verdict for the whole amount. He submitted that the order was a private arrangement and not one between plaintiff and defendant. His Worship, in summing-up, said this was one of those cases arising from loose ways of doing business. Analysing the case he found that young De Costa had told Webb to charge the amount of Scott s advertisement to his mother. There was nothing to connect Scott with the matter, Young De Costa was not a young lad but a young man, and if by his careless way of doing business he made his mother liable she must take the consequences. Bain's evidence touching the £1 7s was very clear. Mrs De Costa had evidently taken some trouble in the matter. Crawford repudiated all knowledge of it. As far as Hicks is concerned, the plaintiffs are clearly liable; the payment of one instalment of the order was an acknowledgement of liability. The verdict would be for the amount, less £1 8s 6d, viz., £6 6s 6d and costs of court 15s ; one witness, 10s ; solicitor's fee, £2 6s —total, £8 12s 6d. POLICE V. KATARINA TATEKA. Katarina Tapeka was charged with stealing 5 scarves, of the value of 17s 6d, from E. K. Brown, on the 18th December. Prisoner said in answer to the question of guilty er not guilty, that she was drunk and did not know what occurred. His Worship ordered a plea of not guilty to be recorded. Mr Brooking had a great deal of trouble in extracting answers from the prisoner as to whether she would like to have counsel. Adjourned till 2 o’clock. The Court resumed at two o’clock, when Mr E. K. Brown proved that the defendant was in his store at five p.m. on the 18th. The scarves were in the store when she was there. He did not see her touch them, and on his telling her and the other natives that they had better clear out if they did not want to buy anything, they all went away, the prisoner mounting a a horse at the door. He then found that the box which had contained these scarves was empty. On asking his storeman, Gilman, he heard something which induced him to call prisoner off her horse. She got off and came outside; in coming in she fell, and the scarves fell to the ground from her person. One scarf was round her neck. The scarves produced were proved to be the ones which had been in the box on the counter. MiBrown’s evidence was corroborated by Alfred Gilman, his storeman. The prisoner cross-questioned Mr Gilman, and endeavoured to shew that she had been given the scarves in the morning by Mr Gilman. In answer to the Bench Mr Gilman said he had not shewn any scarves or neckties to the prisoner on the 18th. The box containing them was open and the contents visible to the public, The scarves which dropped from the prisoner’s person were handed to the police, and are those now produced in Court.

Constable Walsh proved the arrest of the prisoner, and Mr Brown’a charging her with the larceny of the scarves. The prisoner asked him not to lock her up; her friends were at Porter’s hall, and would pay for the scarves, She said she didn’t steal them, another woman gave them to her, but she did not know the woman’s name. The prisoner put several questions to the various witnesses, but failed to disturb the evidence, Prisoner said she did riot remember going to Mr Brown’s in the evening. She went there in the morning to buy a necktie. There weue several people ih court who saw those neckties on her in the morning. When she woke in the night (in the lockup) she did not know where ?he was- Walsh said to her in the morning that she had been very drunk. When she found she was in the lock up she began to cry and asked where her neckties, were gone. Mr Gilman sold her two neckties and she gave him se, The Lady’s statement was rather a disconnected one, and occupied some little time. Cross-examined by prisoner—Mita, sworn, deposed : I live at Owheta. I do not know of giving you any money personally, but Heni, my wife, gave you some yesterday, I did not see you wearing a necktie yesterday. [The case was proceeding when we went to press.]