Resident magistrate's court.

Southland Times, Volume I, Issue 14, 2 July 1864, Page 3

Resident magistrate's court.

— -♦ : . Thursday, ;30th June, 1864. (Before M. Price, Esq., E.M.) ' Patrick Finnigan, charged with drunkenness, was fined ss. ..."■_■ . John Foley and Peter Cameron were charged with highway robbery with violence, on the evening •of the 28th inst. The prisoners were re-: manded tnl Monday next.; _ . :-, James Davis, charged with the theft of _an j . opossum slrihO rug/was remanded tall Saturday morning. ,^ -. Lr. n • Mr Robert Revaleon was charged with allowmg a nuisance to remain oh hls'property. Remanded for a week, to enable' the police to investigate two other cases which borepn the present, one. Charles Ross was charged with a sunfiar offence. Also remanded:for a week, ; Francis Forsola' was brought- up on remand, charged with the theft of a mare. R. Richardson deposed to khowing the prisoner. He gavelmn a letter to deliver to Mr. James Hogan for his (Richardson's) bay mare, with instructions to brim* her to him. I told Mmtf.l would give nun £2 ff he found her, and -to pay the prisoner' for taking her up to the Shotover.- For _want of sufficient evidence, the case was remanded. ' :"■' . ' CIVIL CASE 3; E. Habgin and Co.'s Trustees v. Smith.tClaim for £5 Bs. Defendant disputed the amount, owing to the work charged for hot being completed.. Evidence not being conclusive, the case was adjourned tiU the following day. Town Board Appeal Cases. (Before M. Price, Esq., R.M. ; W. F. Tarlton, Esq., J.P. ; and D. M'Arthur, Esq., J.P.) W H Pearson v. Town Board. — Mr. Weston for Town Board. Mr. M'Donald for appeUant. Mr. Weston, in opening this case for special rates, said he would call on the appellants for strict proof for their grounds of appeal. Mr M'Donald said he understood that aU technical objections had been waived. He had proof, if that were necessary. The appeal raised was. solely on : the illegality of the assessment, it not being framed in terms of the Ordinance. Case remanded for evidence. ' Holmes v. Town Board.— Mr. Macdonald appeared for the appellant, who claimed relief from excessive assessment. Mr. Monkman was examined as to the value of the sections in October last and cross-examined by Mr. Macdonald as to the 'annual value to let on Bth April, and also to the selling value at that time. Counsel for the appellant not having any objection to the selling value ' laid down by Mr. Monkman, the Bench determined the assessment, as in the case of Mr. Heale, at 10 per cent, on the value, at Is. 6d. per PW. H. PEARSON V. Town Board.— The ordinary "assessments appealed against by Mr. Pearson were now heard. Mr. Monkman gave evidence as to the value to let and to sell in April. The Bench fixed the rate of assessment at 10 per cent, on the value, as stated by Mr. Monkman. Dr. Berndt, appellant, v. Town Board. — There was a house erected on this section, and the value was stated by Mr. Monkman at £250. Assessment fixed at 15 per cent, on value. Howarth, appellant, v. Town Board.— Mr. Monkman stated the value to sell in April, and the Bench fixed the assessment at 10 per cent, on that value, at Is. 6d. Mr. Price, at this stage, remarked that his brother magistrates had just stated that it was a very hard case for those parties who had paid their assessments without appeal. Mr. Weston was aware that there was considerable hardship involved, but there was also considerable difficulty of making any alteration. The Town Board had received a good sum in assessments, but their present state of funds did not permit of their refunding any money to any parties who had paid without appeal. Mr. Price said those parties would offer no objection to the over assessment being refunded. M'Culloch, appellant, v. Town Board. — Assessment fixed as in the previous cases. Scott, appellant, v. Town Board. — Assessment fixed at 15 per cent oh improved sections, and 10 per cent, on those unimproved. W. H. Pearson, appellant, v. Town Board. This case of special rates was now heard. Mr. M'Donald said the notice given by the Board was charging the appellant at 3s. 4d. per foot frontage. The Ordinance provides that all the owners of property pay equally, according to the annual value to let of the property, and not to the frontage. He also took exception to the time °of issuing tbe notice, which had not permitted Mr. Pearson tp make appeal in proper time. Mr. Weston insisted that the Board had power to levy rates for the maintenance, &c, of the streets for the period of six years, and it would be for the Bench to determine if the Board's mode of procedure were not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The mode of assessment may not be quite according to those provisions, but it came quite to the same thing. Mr. M'Donald said he would waive his objection if the Board could show that the rate, as fixed by them, did not weigh with undue severity on sections which let at small rentals, while sections which at great rentals paid only the same rate. Mr. Price was clearly of opinion that the assessment was not made in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance. The Court decided that the assessment had been levied illegally, and gave judgment for appehant accordingly, together with oost3. -„,,,. (Before M. Price, Esq., R.M.) W. H. Calder, appellant, v. Town Board. —The appeal in this case was against the ordinary assessment. Mr. Monkman gave evidence as to the seEing value of the sections in April. The Bench decided the assessment as in the previous cases of appeal. James Blaceloce, appellant, v. Town Board. — The Bench decided the assessment as in previous cases. Mr. Mantell, appellant, v. Town Board. — The decision was in conformity with the judgment in -the previous cases. Captain Elles, appellant, v. Town Board. — The Bench awarded a verdict in conformity with the judgment in previous cases. : Colter, appellant, v. Town Board. — Judgment was given as in former cases. • The Court then adjourned till the following day, at eleven o'clock.

Fbiday, 27th July, 1864. (Before M. Price, Esq., R.M.) Caedeb, asd Co. v. Pope.— Claim for £3 19s. 10d., being balance of account due for goods supplied. Defendant did not appear. Judgment for plaintiff for amount, with costs. Caedeb and Co. v. Bloojieiehd. — Action to recover the sum of £8 lis. 7d., for goods supplied. Defendant made no appearance. Judgment for plaintiffs, by default, together with costs. De Jattx v. Wentwobth. — Claim for £2 7s. Defendant did not appear. Judgment for amount for plaintiff, with 7s. costs. Haegin and Co's Tbt/stees v. Or. Smith. — This case was remanded from yesterday. Mr. Jaggers deposed to the work in dispute being properly finished. Mr. Harghi stated that when he examined the work he found the piping not connected. , The Bench decided that the case be adjourned until the plaintiffs should have the work completed!" The case was accordingly adjourned till next Thursday, the 7th inst. Habghcn and Co.'s Tetjstees v. Ibvine. : — The ' defendant in this action made no appearance, and judgment was given in default in favor of plaintiffs for the amount sued for, together -with expenses. The jCourfc then rose.

It may be remembered that some Bhort time ago a vessel, the Grolden Age, sunk near San Francisco, laden with gold bars to a great value. It seems that bars to the amount of about £50,000 were recovered, with which the finder afterwards decamped^; -It is supposed that some of these bars have been-brought to London, and- a reward of - £3000 has been offered for the detention and ap-' prehension pf the thieves, One jof the party has already been arrested. '