TE AROHA WARDEN'S COURT.

Te Aroha News, Volume XI, Issue 1745, 5 June 1895, Page 2

TE AROHA WARDEN'S COURT.

(Before H Eyre Kenny, Esq.) T; Mclndoe, application for exchange of title, business site No. 38, Block 6, Te Aroha. Granted. . .

: J. Williams, application for prospecting aera, 30 acres at Stony Creek, known as the old Morning Star. Adjournod to next court, to enable the Warden to ascertain if the ground applied for was £ a mile from Other workings. . u - , B. Y. Cox, application for exchange of title for property on the corner of Whitaker and Bridge-street. Granted. W. Reid, application for busmes site, lot 12, Block 11, Te Aroha. Granted.: :

J. B. Johnson, application for exchange of title of busines site, lot 5, Block 13, Te Aroha. Granted. 7 v '. . Malcolm Fleming, application for Monarch Extended : Objected to by Mr Mills. Mr. Gilchrist, for the objector, wished to attack the policy of granting such an extent of country to one man. IJis Worship said each case would • to be dealt with ; on its own merits. In rep'y tq a question from the Warden, Mr Miller, .who appeared for the applicant, .stated that the latter had also applied fur another special claim. His Worship then said it was quite pbvious he could not grant two special claims, as he would not allow any individual or company to possess a monopoly of licenses to one person.. Mr Miller- replied, that he thought this difficulty cuuld be overcome, and he was prepared to discuss the matter when the applicaiion, has been dealt with, but as the plans were not yet completed it was necessary; for him (Mr Miller) to apply for an adjournment. His Worship’therefore granted an adjournment until-the' - 2REh inst. ■ 7 •* Malcolm Fleming applied for the Sceptre Special Claim. This was objected to,by R. Burke, to the effect that part of the ground had been tried by him for years past, and he wished to retain six acres of it. Mr Miller, for the applicant, said he did not wish to interfere with, any of these workings at present./ He thought that when plans were prepared there would be really no cause for objection. The parties agreed that the case should be adjourned. T. Gavin, application for Loyalty Palace claim Objected to by Malcolm Fleming . Mr Miller appeared for the objector, apd said that in this case also the plans would' be essential when tlie application was being dealt with, and he asked for an adjournment similar to the last case.

Mr Gavin objected to the adjournment, and s.iid it was against the interest of the field. These people had pegged out >the .whole country and were driving men away frmi the place, and if the case was adjourned it would prevent prospecting while, the matter stood in abeyance. His Worship replied-that it was nothing unusual, to have repeated ad j o urnmonts, as plans: were really necessary before the application could be dealt with, and though there was a good deal of reason in what Mr. Gavin had said, but there was no other alternative than to adjourn'the case until the i.B h instant.

G. S. Graham, application for All Nations Licensed Holding, at Stoney Creek. * . . 7. -

Mr Gilchrist appeared on behalf of the applicant, and stated that plans wero prepared and all necessary work done. Granted* :; A A

W. Burton, application for New Find No. 1 Licensed Holding. Granted. W. Burton, application New Find No. -2 Licensed Holding. Granted. R. Burke, application for Welcome. Objected to by M. Fleming; no plans. Adjourned till next Court day. J. Mills v- J. McCosh Clark, H. H. Adams, Mitchelson and Sarah Mitchelson. Application for forfeiture of Werihiko. Mr Gilchrist appeared for the application. His Honour obj ectpd to the advertisement in the Herald, And said that it should have been advertised in the Te News, being the paper published in the town, i .Wo must not look upon advertisements as a mere form, it was a great deal more than that. The absentee might have his attorney or agent in tho colony, it should be advertised at least 7 days previouS'to Court ; day. Adj ourned to be adverrised in the local paper. » - • • MAGISTRATE COURT./ J. Williams v. W. Bycroft, claim £6 on judgment summons. j. [ - , Mr Gilohrist appeared for the plain-/ tiff, and stated he had arranged with the defendant to pay £1 to-day and £1 monthly until the whole was paid off. So ordered, or in default 10 days in Mt. Eden: . v W. Brady v Malcolm Bobertson. Claim for damages for breach of contract. _ Mr Gilchrist appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Miller for the defendant. Mr Gilchrist stated that in October, 1894 last, he was the authorised agent of Mr Malcolm Bobertson for the sale of his property at Gordon Settlement, the price he was willing to accept was £IBO, and it must besoldbefore the end of: the year; in December J, Brady called upon him and he agreed to purchase it for £l4O, and an agreement was drawn up and signed by Brady any himself, as Robertson's agent. Mr Bobertson agreed to the sale of the property for £l4O. The Land Board refused to transfer the property to J;

Brady as lie had already 189 acres.J He then submitted the name of Mrs j Brady to the Land Board. In cross-examination by ' Mr he stated that he acted as land agent as well as a solicitor, and that he acted for both Brady and Bobertson until tne latter declined to transfer to Mrs Jj3ra<fyv. ' .-v; . ■ His Worship was of the opinion that in the terms of the agreement the sale was to Mr’J. Brady not? .to Mrs Brady, and that as the Land'Board declined to transfer to Brady , the j; matter, dropped, ' There was no break . lof contract. He would therefore dis- J miss the case, each party to pay their own costs. B. Montague v, J. Carroll. Charged with using provoking and insulting language. Mr Gilchrist appeared for complainant, and Mr Miller for the defendant. ■ • B. Montague being sworn, stated that at a public meeting held at the Gordon Settlement he was ask ng the I Chairman Questions when the. defendant used the language complained of, and a number of the audience supported him by applause, and he :(Montague) then put out his tongjie at the defendant. . Mr Miller thqu cross-examined the 1 witness at length, who admitted that he was charged with opening letters, he being postmaster, at the Settlement. Mr Miller; you chairman ? Witness : I was elected chairman, and had a hostile committee. Mr MillerDo you know Carroll ?. Witness : Yes. *- Mr Miiler : Did you. open a.-letter from His son ? ' . V Witness : No. Mr Miller : Who opened the letter ? Witness : Mr Livock opened it when he gave it to me to deliver. . Mr Miller: Did you not tell the defendant that Mr Livock told , you to open it ? , ; . , Witness : No. Mr Miller : Did Carrol accuse you of opening the letter 4 ? s. m - Witness: Yes. ' . Witness then explained that Mr Livock gave him a letter to give to J. Carroll, it was opened when he received it and was delivered the same evening* Mr Brady being called said he was at the meeting and remembered the which was in the charge. /This closed the case for the prosecution. S ■ ; ; ; * - Mr Miller then submitted that he had no case to meet, ‘s' . •

It was not an offence under this ato use insulting language in the p re eence of the person, it must be to the person. The complainant should have 'to show that he has cause to fear the defendant. : '

The aotion was only brought against Carrol for the purpose of annoying him and causing him expense. J; Squirrel! being called said he was ohaiiman of the meeting in question. The arose, on account of Mr B. Montague being charged with opening 3 letters for asperate persons one of which was Mr Carroll’s. Witness thought Mr Montague Was very provoking in his behaviour to Carroll, and annoyed him by laughing in his face and also putting out his tongue. A Land Bbmd letter had been kept back by Mr Montague for 6 weeks, and had been opened by him at the time he was not chairman and had no right to open letters. Witaess was cross-examined by Mr Gilchrist: He knew Carroll to, be a man of excitable temperament, he lives and works at Waihi. Mr Gilchrist continued to cross-examine witness, trying to show that Carroll was likely to be often at home and so likely to meet Montague. Mr Gilchrist : Does not his wife live at the Gordon ? Yes. Does not his family live at the Gordon ? Yes. Do you not think then that it is the. most natural place for Mr Carroll to go to ? Yes But he doesn’t >ee u addicted to going to the most natural place. (Laughter in court, instantly suppressed by the constable.) • Mr Livo’ck being called, was asked if he remembered giving Montague a letter, and whether it was opened or not. Witness replied it was so long ago he could not swear whether it was open or not. His Worship said he did not think there was any cause for Mr Montague to fear. At the same he did not think the conduct of the accused was warrantable, Carroll did not seem penitent for what he had done, or ho might have dealt otherwise with him. He thought he would be sufficiently punished if he pays his costs in this case, he would therefore dismiss the plaint, each party tolpay their own costs. But if the. accused had expressed his regret he would have ordered the complainant to pay all costs.