RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 1534, 6 February 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Before Henby M'Cztiiooh, Esq., R.M. Riveetoh, Friday, 2nd Febbttaby. the gold -eb.&.ttd. Ah Hoon was charged on the information of the police with having received a sum of money amounting to £15, well knowing the same to have been recently obtained by one Kee Chang by means of false pretences. Inspector Fox conducted the prosecution. John Alloo acted as interpreter. The following is the evidence adduced : — Henry Howells, storekeeper, Orepuki — I am a gold buyer for the Bank of New Zealand. On Monday, the 15th January, Kee Chang, named in the information, came to me at my store in Orepuki and said that he had some gold to sell. He produced what appeared to be a cake of retorted gold. It was weighed and found to be 25 ozs some odd dwts. I paid him £97, being at the rate of £2 15s 6d per oz. I bought it, believing it to be a cake of retorted gold, and on the faith that what Kee Chang then said was true. The price was paid in Bank of New Zealand notes— £s and £10. On the 24th December last I received that money, which corre3Donds with the notes now produced, as part of a sum of £120 from Mr Matthews, the Bank agent at Riverton. That money was given to me on the express stipulation that it should be appropriated for no other purpose than the purchase of gold. On Thursday, the 18th January, I brought in the cake of metal produced, which is the one I purchased from Chang, to Riverton. It was tested by Mr Matthews, and found to be spurious and base metal. J. W. Matthews, agent for the Bank of New Zealand at Eiverton, proved that the notes produced were part of a sum handed by him on the 23rd December to the last witness lor the purchase of gold. On the 18th of January he received the cake of metal produced from the witness Howells, and on testing it found that it was a compound of base metal. On the afternoon of Saturday, the 20th January, he handed over the metal to the Inspector of Police. Ah Chow, a Chinese miner, presently residing in Invercargill, was sworn by the extinguishing of a match. He deposed, through the interpreter — I know the Chinaman, Kee Chang j also the prisoner, Ah Hoon. They are brothers. On Tuesday, the 16th January, they both arrived in Invercargill by coach from Riverton. They stayed that night at the Melbourne Hotel. Next day the accused came to the Chinese house in Dee-street, Kee Chang remaining at the hotel. They were frequently together at the Chinese house. On Thursday, the 18th January, the police came to the Chinese house to enquire for Kee Chang. Witness remarked to the accused, " There must be something up with Kee Chang when the police are after him." Prisoner replied, " No, you say nothing ; it is no matter to you if there is anything up with Kee Chang. Kee Chang, Moy Ping, and Quan Hey have had a conversation before, and have arranged the matter. Nothing up with Kee Chang. Moy Ping and Quan Hey have settled that." Witness afterwards saw the accused change his dress three times that day, which was a very unusual thing for a Chinaman to do. Inspector Fox proved that on Monday, the 22nd ultimo, he saw the accused at the Railway Station, Invercargill. He inquired his name, and when told, asked him where Kee Chang was. He replied, "Me no know Kee Chang." Witness asked, " Are you not Kee Chang's brother ? " Prisoner replied, " No, me no know Kee Chang." The witness continued — I told prisoner to pick up his swag and took him into a side-room and had him searched. I found the notes produced sewed up in the lining at different places of a jumper taken out of the swag. On seeing the notes taken out, prisoner trembled violently. I asked, " Whose money is this ? " Prisoner replied, "Me no know." I asked again — " To whom doe3 this money belong ? " Prisoner again replied, " Me no know," and continued in the same breath, " My brother lent me £40 four days ago." I asked, " What brother^? " and he replied, "Kee Chang." The notes produced are those I took from the jumper. Prisoner was fully committed to take his trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court in Invereargill. The prisoner was then charged with a second offence of the same kind, the money (£2O) being part of a sum obtained by Kee Chang from James Thyne, gold buyer for the Bank of New Zealand, Orepuki. After the evidence had been heard, which was principally a repetition of that led in the previous case, prisoner was committed to take his trial on this charge also. CIVIL OASE. Davis v. Geeen and Arett — Claim for £65 105, being the price of dray (£63), and the balance for work and labor done. Defendants paid £2 10s into court, and pleaded (1) that the dray had never been ordered, and (2) that it had not been made in conformity to the alleged order, and was unfit for the purpose for which it was intended. Mr Harvey (Invercargill) for plaintiff, and Mr Wade (Invercargill) for defendants. Mr Harvey objected to defendants' pleas on the ground that they were so utterly contradictory as to be rendered wholly unintelligible. Mr Wade contended that in accordance with the Common Law Procedure Acts, both pleas were open to defendants The Bench sustained both pleas, after which evidence was led for the plaintiff. For the defence, Mr Wade moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that it was enaetad by the 17th section of the Statute of Frauds — " That no contract for the sale of any goods, wares, and merchandise for the price of £10 sterling and upwards shall be allowed to be good except the buyer shall accept part of the goods so soldi and

actually receive the same or give something in earnest to bind the bargain, or in part payment, or that some note or memorandum in writing of the said bargain be made and signed by the parties to be charged by such contract, or their agents, thereunto lawfully authorised." Counsel cited from Addison on Contracts, page 52, to show that by 9 Qeo. 4, c. 14, §7, this provision had been extended to contracts for the sale of goods, notwithstanding that the goods may be intended to be delivered at some future time, or may not at the time of such contract be actually made, procured, or provided, or fit or ready for delivery, or some act may be requisite for making or completing thereof, and rendering the same fit for delivery. The Magistrate ruled that plaintiff be nonsuited with costs, £6 ss.