RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1299, 22 March 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Tuesday, March 20. I [Before A. Graham, Esq., andCapt.Tucker, Esq., ,l. : sP.] POLICE V. KA PAJinnO. The prisoner was charged with being ; drunk in a public place, on the 1 9th inst., J and pleaded guilty. Fined 10s or in default 24 hours’ imprisonl ment. SAME V. REbMONI). James Redmond was charged on the in- ■ formation of Sergeant Bullen, with having unlawfully illnscd a horse, by ruling it when 1 it had an unhealed wound on its b.t.ck, at \\ aerunra-a-hika. on the 20th of bkbru.t' V I last,

Mr Br-'weny :> V the dcfcndi'.nt, and pleaded’mx'gu Sergt, Bullen stated, that when he was on the . race-course on the 20th ult., his attention j was drawn t<> a horse, which had a sore back. He watched the horse ami saw the defendant riding away on it, when he told him of it, and showed it to him. The wound was not a fresh one, it was an old i ulcer, and had been sore for some time. The I saddle was pressed into the wound. It waa j a bay horse. Mr Nolan corroborated the former evi- ' deuce. j dames Redmond deposed : I am working ■ on Mr Bloomfield’s station as stockman. 1 remember riding the horse in question. I , came from Mr Bloomfield’s. I wanted to J come into town, and there was no other • horse on the station that 1 could take, and I had to take the one with the sore back. It ' was not very bad when I started. 1 put on a saddlecloth to protect the sore. T. E. R. Bloomfield deposed : The defendant is in my employ. It is eome thm- since I saw the horse. It ha« been in the paddock for some time. A horse cannot be kept at that time of the year without h iving sores. After a short consultation, their Worship* fined the defendant £3 3s, with the costs of Court ss. Rogan <Jc Nolan v. G. Johnstone. Claim £lO 18s 7d for the preparation of a bill of sale. Mr Finn appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Kenny for the defendant. After hearing the evidence of both plaintiff and defendant, Mr Kenny addressed the Court, and said that the defence was simply “no retainer.” That Mr Nolan was not instructed to prepare the bill ; that the document had Is on prepared for Ruesell, and therefore had nothing whatever tn do with the defendant. That Mr Nolan had gone to , .Mr Johnstone and said that Russell insisted i on having security, and it was done solely j for the benefit of Russell. He now quoted j from several authorities, and clearly proved that the proper course would have been for I Russell to pay the plaintiff what expenses had been incurred, and then to sue Johnstone, but the present action was not good, ; and that the plaintiff could not recover.

Mr Finn said that in this case the Court ; must be satisfied that Johnstone was liable j for the amount claimed. Mr Nolan ha I j stated that when he received Russell’s letter asking for security he showed it to the de- j fondant, who agreed to give security, and ; therefore he made out the bill of sale. Mr j Nolan had asked Johnstone to pay the , amount for so doing, and he had promised to ' do so several times, but he now said he did ; not remember ever promising anything of the sort. Me (Mr Finn) thought the case ! perfectly clear, and hoped their Worships were of his opinion that the plaintiff should receive judgment. Their Worships summed up, and gave a j verdict for the full amount, and costs of the Court, 19s. Hohana v. Cowen.

Claim, £7 10a, for work done. Mr Kenny appeared for the plaintiff'; Mr McDougall for the defendant. Considerable evidence was given, and on hearing the arguments of both sides, Mr McDougall proceeded to address the Court as follows : —ln this case it is plain there is no conflict of evidence, in the first place Cohen’s evidence is clear enough, and I shall show that the evidence on the other side is not. The plaintiff admits that on Monday he agreed to go to work, that he did not go because it rained, ami that is no excuse. He told your Worships in point of fact that they did not set to work till the Wednesday, and which they ought to have done according to the agreement on the Monday previous. 1 submit that Cohen’s evidence has been corroborated by the independent witness, Graham, and that it is consistent. 1 also submit that Cohen’s conduct has been perfectly straightforward in the matter, and that he should not be made to pay double on account of the Imagination of the natives, Mr Kenny stated in reply : From the rej marks of my learned friend, I understand • him to say that because the plaintiff did not ; go to worn on the Monday a.i agreed, but did | so on the Wednesday following, that the contract had fallen through, 1 say it is not so, as th© men could not work in the rain, and had to postpone it till fine weather. If a man said he would do a certain thing at a certain time and did not keep his promise,

then the whole contract would fall through, | but the plaintiff could hot keep his part of the contract as it was too wot. I. therefore, submit that my learned friend’& argument on .! that point is nil. I do not aay Cohen has I acted tlishones'ly, but the chief question is, j what did the plaintiff and the other natives i understand. They absolutely contradict ■ Col ten : they say they always looked to j Cohen for payment, and not- to Runganui, ; whom the defendant makes out is the liable ; party. I believe all through there has been ! a mianndcrstaudb.'g on both widea, ami a eon- : tract is not a contract unless the whole of the • parties concerned have a common intention. Their Worships said they would reserve ■ their decision until to-morrow morning. . On Wednesday morning, the Court, after a lengthy consultation, decided to nonsuit • the plaintiff, each party paying his own