R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 118, 29 April 1884, Page 2

R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

(Before J. Booth, Esq., R.M.) MONDAY. LARCENY. Watene Taitapanui, was brought up charged with the larceny of a saddle, valued at £4 sterling, the property of George Tarr, on the 13th of this month. Mr. DeLautour appeared for the accused. George Tarr deposed that he was at the Isle of Mull Hotel on the 13th of this month. He saw the accused there. He tethered his horse outside the hotel, leaving the saddle and bridle on it. When he returned at ten o’clock he missed the horse, saddle, and bridle. 'When he missed them, the accused was still at the hotel. Gave the accused into custody on the 29th inst. Had never seen him between the 13th and then. Came down to Ormond last Thursday week. Saw accused there on a horse, and when he got off recognized the saddle as his. Accused came to speak to him. He (witness), then went to Constable Pegley, accused in the meantime rode away. ConstablePegley went after him, and brought him back. Never gave accused authority to take the saddle. To Mr. DeLautour —Found the horse at the Rangatira on the following Monday, with nothing on it. Have not found the bridle since. The tether rope had been untied. Edward Burt deposed that the former witness had told him, on the 14th inst., that he had lost his saddle. Constable Pegley deposed as to having arrested the accused on the 14th instant, at Ormond. Herowine remembered the day in question, when informant and accused were at the Isle of Mull. Did not hear the informant say he had lost a saddle or horse. W. Morris deposed having received a letter from the accused asking him to state that he (accused) had received the saddle from Herewine, and he would pay him for it. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr. DeLatour called one witness, Waitira, who gave unimportant evidence. His Worship said there was no doubt of the prisoner’s guilt, as he had attempted to bribe one witness to swear that the saddle had been given to him by another party. He would sentence him to three months imprisonment , with hard labor, in the Napier Gaol. THIS DAY. R. COLEBROOK V. E. PAVIOUR. Claim £5 14s. Bd. on a judgment summons. An order was made that the amount be paid by weekly instalments, in default seven day’s imprisonment. COLEBROOK V. BIDGOOD. Claim £9 17s. No appearance of defendant. An order was made that £2 be paid in May and the balance in the first week in June. In default six days imprisonment. MULLOOLY V. P. PARAU. Claim, £B. No appearance of defendant. This was a judgment summons, and an order was made that the amount be paid on or before the 10th of June. In default eight clays imprisonment. 8. M. WILSON V. JAMES DE EMDEN. Claim, £3 7s. 6d., for cab hire and the recovery of a saddle. Mr. Ward for plaintiff, and Mr. Nolan for defendant. Mr. Ward said 30s. had been paid into Court. The plaintiff deposed that the defendant had hired cabs and horses on different occasions, whilst staying here. Defendant had hired a saddle which had not been returned, and had tendered him (plaintiff) 255. in settlement of the account, which he would not accept. R. Little having corroborated the former witness’s evidence, the evidence of the defendant, who was in Waimate, was read, denying the debt. ° Judgment was given for the amount, less one item—7s. 6d. for cab hire, with costs, Bs. HEMI TE AWAHUKA V. BARKER & MCDONALD. Claim £B7 arrears of annuity. Mr. DeLautour for plaintiff, and Mr. Kenny with Mr. Ward for defendants. Mr. DeLautour explained that the plaintiff had been nonsuited in this case previously, on a point raised by Mr. Kenny that the plaintiff had not given him authority to act on his (Hemi’s) behalf. The plaintiff had requested that the case should again be b ought, and he (Mr. DeLatour) wovll prove that ho had authority to act. Mr. DeLatour called the plaintiff who proved that he had given him authority to act on his behalf. To Mr. Kenny—l signed the plaint in this building. Mr. Tucker brought me here and interpreted it to me. I went to Tucker’s i house and asked him to come here. I asked ■ him to write out a summons for Mr. Barker. We then came straight here and did so, On

coming we turned in to Mr, DcLatour’s office. Mr. Kenny asked “ What passed at the office,” to which Mr. DeLatour objected, as it was not right to ask what took place between the solicitor and client, Examination continued—When at the office I instructed Messrs. Seivwright and DeLautour to come and take out the summons. No one has spoken to me since the case was nonsuited advising me to bring the case. I brought it myself so that I could get my money for my interest in \\ nataupoko. Mr. Kenny asked if witness. remembered signing a deed conveying all his interest in the Whataupoko to Messrs. Rees and Wi Peri, to hold in trust for him. Mr. DeLautour objected to this, as the deed spoke for itself, and his Worship concurred. Examination continued —I have not received £l5 from Captain Tucker on account of Whataupoko. I did not assign my interest to Captain Tucker on account of money received from him. Mr. Kenny said : I must apply again for a nonsuit. The deed states that the defendants agree to pay the plaintiff annuity from Dec. 31st, 1«77, to the plaintiff, to the end of his life, from year to year. Now the plaintiff only claims for five years. They also do not claim for the corresponding interest for that omitted time. Now if these were claimed, as they should be, the real claim would be over £lOO, and beyond his Worship’s jurisdiction, Mr. DeLautour replied that the annuity for the years 1879 and 1878 had been paid, they therefore claimed rightly from 1879. Mr. Kenny contended that the annuity for the first year had not been paid, their own evidence showed that. Even if it had, there was the second year, that had not been proved to have been paid. His Worship said, he took it that the first year had been paid. There was the year 1878 that had not been claimed, that therefore put the case out of his jurisdiction, and he would have to nonsuit the plaintiff again. The plaintiff was non suited accordingly. FRYER V. FLOOD. Claim, £ll 15s, Mr. Nolan for plaintiff, and Mr. Ward for defendant. The plaintiff deposed as to the correctness of the account . The defendant stated that he had agreed with Mr. Fryer to hire a horse from him, to take him to Napier. He got a horse, which broke down on the way, and he had to walk the best part of the distance. After a great deal of trouble he arrived at Napier. He returned on the same horse, and was about six days coming through, and had to get another horse to complete the journey. The plaintiff was called to give rebutting evidence, and swore that the horse did not knock up at all, and was quite right at the end of the journey, as it was before. His Worship here gave judgment for the plaintiff, with costs.