RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1052, 9 January 1883, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tkmuka—Monday, Jan. 8, 1882

(Before I.N. Watt, Esq., R.M.) LARC'BNY. Charles Hawkins was brought up on remand charged with stealing two bottles of ale from the Winchester Hotel. Mr Pearson defended the accused. George Ramsay : lama tradesman, hut I'm a laborer/at present. I know accused by the name of ' Charley,' but I do not know that his name is Hawkins. I had the pleasure of going through the yard, and saw the accused in the window. There were two bottles on the ground. I 6aw the b( ttlcs in the hands of the accused afterwards. To Mr Pearson : I saw the bottles, but T do not know whether they were empty or not. Ido not know whether they were bottles of beer or not. Charles Johnston Gordon : I am a carrier residing at Winchester. I know accused. I remember him coming to my house, I believe, on the 7th, on Sunday afternoon He came with 'I hos. Howsley; and produced a bottle of beer, and said he was jroing treat me and my missus. He said nothing about where lie got it. To Mr Pearson: He came in a friendly manner with a bottle of beer. He had visited my house before. T. Swinton : I am a hotelkeeper at Winchester. The accused was employed by me as cook up to the 17th of last month. The bottle produced is the brand of beer that I keep. I never sold a bottle similar to that to the accused during the time that he was in my employment, I have missed 14 bottles of ale and 14 bottles of Btout from mv cellar.

To Mr Pearson : The accused did not ask me for a bottle of beer on a Sunday afternoon.

After Mr Pearson had addressed the Bench,Mr K. Sando was called to testify as to the character of the accused. He h&d known the accused for about five years, and always found him a respectable man.

His Worship thought there was prima facie, evidence of the guilt of the accused, and sent him to prison for H days. NEGLECTING TO VACCINATE. Frank Connell was charged with having neglected to vaccinate his child. Mr O'Hallor n said he had received trom Dr Macintyre a certificate postponing the vaccination. The case was dismissed. Cornelius Flynn was charged with a simitar offence. The defendant handed in a certificate allowing that the child had been vaccinated by Dr Hayes. His Worship paid the medical men in both these cases were in fault. The case was dismissed.

MAKING A DISTURBANCE

Charles Reid who was charged by the police with throwing stcnes on a certain hcuse on the night of the 25th of December last pleaded guilty, and was fined 10s.

THE LEACH ESTATE

Henry Kahu, George Bolton, and James Blyth, were charged on the information of William McCann with having driven cattle off laii'i, which they were act ownera or occupiers,

Mr Austin said Kahu had not been summoned, and asktd for an adjournment. Mr White, wno appeared lor the defence, objected to the case being adjourned unless costs were paid. It was agreed to adjourned the case until later on in the day. When the case was afterwards called on, Mr White said it was a case of disputed title and was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. Mr Austin read the clause of the ordinance under which the information was laid, and submitted that the question of title had nothing to do with it. His Worship held that it was a question of title. Mr Austin asked his Worship to make the other side show that there was a dispute as to title. George Bolton was called, and stated that he was one of the trustees in the estate of Da rid Leach. Mr Austin asked for proof.

Mr White produced the information,iu which George Bolton and James Blyth wen- described by Mr Austin as trustees. Mr Austin said this was not sufficient proof. They must produce the Gazette notice.

The case was again adjourned until a paper containing the Gazette notice was produceed. Mr Austin insisted that one papsr was rot sufficient evidence. Two papers wfre necessary. After this point had been argued, the Magistrate held that the trusteeship had bet-.n proved, George Bolton then gave evidence to the effect that Henry Kahu had been appointed bailiff on the land, and had authority to impound cattle, Blyth gave similar evidence. After a good deal of argument, on both sides, I lis Worship held he had no jurisdiction in the case, and dismissed it. No costs we r e allowed. 6TEALING DOCUMENTS. George Boltou and James Blyth were charged on the information of Henry rielwood Austin with having stolen documents from his office on Saturday evening last. Mr Austin prosecuted, and Mr White appeared for the defence. Mr Austin in opening the case said he felt bound to make the mattei public He submitted an offence had been committed under the Larceny Act of 1867. He then stated the facts of the case, which are given in his evidence as follows:

Henry Selwood Austin : I am a solicitor of the Supreme Court. On Friday evening last myself, the accused and William McCann met at my office, in Temuka, by appointment, for the purpose of discussing certain overtures that had been made with reference to a dispute between Willian McCann and the accused as to certain cattle which had been seized by the accused ; and as to a claim made by them tor an interest in the Native Reserve, Arowhenua. The meeting was stated to be without prejudice, and a long discussion took p! ~ce. The accused said, ' Would you let us see the Maori agreement an( j McCann's assignment ? Before we fMfre any offer we must see them, as we are informed that there never was an assignment. I said ' Certainly, w« will produce it if it will help the settlement. I hare not got it with me, but will produce it next evening.' Bolton said ' Very well, we just want to see it,' and an appointment was made for the next evening in my office, for that purpose. As we were likely to settle the matter we made no objection to the accused advertising the land for sale. On Saturday evening I was in my office when Blyth and Bolton came in. My clerk was present. I had the documents by my side, and I handed them to accused to look at. Blyth took the Maori agreement, which was dated 1875. Bolton took the assignment to McCaun. They read them then exchanged with each other. " When Blyth had finished McCann's assignment he folded the document up, making the remark ' We have made up our mind's, Mr Austin, what to do;' and he (Mr Blyth) put it in his pocket. Bolton put the Maori agreement, in his pocket. I said < You don't mean that, Mr Blyth ; vou're surely joking.' He said 'We do, though.' I then. Those documents are my pro perty. You won't leave this office till I send for a policeman.' While I waß saying this 1 locked both door?, a id told my clerk 'o go for the police, In fc3ii minutes time Constable Morton came. I accused them of stealing the documents, and asked him to take them into custody, unless they delivered them up. The constable rpfused, I then went to Mr S. D. Barker, J. P., but he refused to give me a warrant. My reason for doing fo was because the documents were in their possession, and I did not know where they would go with them.

To Mr White : Both are old residents, but it is a matter ef opinion whether they occupy a respcotable posi tion. One of them I thought so.

Mr While : Which of them put Hie document in his pocket ? Witness : Each of them put a document in his pocket, To White . Do you knovi that these men are tru>-tees in the estate of David Lcnch ?

Witness : I believe they are not,

Mr White : Were they elected at the creditors' meeting ?

Witness: I believe not, They are called upon to show cause why they should' not be removed.

Mr White : You Bay you do not know that they were elected ?

Witness: Yes, I refused to Gazette them.

Mr White : Is it not true that they did not require your services ? Witness : f believe they were illegally elected.

Mr White : Have you not been working against them since? Witness : I have acted as Mr McCann's solicitor-. Mr White : You have acted for Mr McCann ? Witness : I have.

Mr White : You said in the beginning your object was to make this public. Was it not to get. your costs out of ii that you held it ? Witness : I wanted to make it public to set myself right with my client. My costs had nothing to do with it. Mr White : You surely knew very well this was not common larceny ? Witness: I'thought it very uncommon larcenv.

Mr White : And you took a very uncommon course in dealing with it ? Witness : They kave often before gone very near the law. Mr White : That's your opinion. Do you know that these men claimed these documents as a part of the estate ? Witness : They made no claim upon me for them.

Mr White : Do you mean to say you were never asked for the lease of the reserve ?

Witness : I have been applied to to produc it, but refused.

Mr White : You were anxious to keep | ersonal'possession of it ? Witness : 1 considered that my duty. Mr White : Did not Mr Blyth tell you when he took possession of the document that he would read it at his leisure, and produce it at the meeting of creditors next Wednesday? Witness : I do rot know that he said he would read it at his leisu-e, but I said I would accept no compronrse until I got possession of the document, and that I would pn dace it myself at the meeting of creditors. Mr White : How could you expect them to put any faith in what you said when you had refused to produce it so frequently before ? Would not a civil action have done you in this matter? Witness : I did not think they had acted respectably. Mr White : Their conduct hurt your feelings ; I suppose ? Witness. It did, considerably.

Mr White : You would have had them locked up on Saturday if you could ?

Witness : I would, but I am glad tbev were not now.

Mr White : So you ought. Witness : I would bear the brunt of

it, Mr White : But you went to bed and slept ou it, and you thought better cf it next morning. Witness: I could not get the warrant on Saturday night, but Mr Barker signed the summons tor me in my office on Sunday morning. Mr White : You were then satisfied with a summons although you were ready to lock them up on the previous evening ? Witness : 1 should have done it if I could. Mr White: Oh, ft rash man would do anything. You said the meeting on Friday evening; was by appointment ? Witness : Yes. Mr White: Was it not at your request the trustees came ? Witness : Overtures were made to settle the dispute. Mr White : Was it not yoa who made the overtures ? Were you not acting for Brown and McCann ? Witness : I have done business for Mr Brown. Mr White : Were you not actinsr for Bi'fwn and M'Cann in this matter ? Witness : Mr Brown instructed me to issue a summons agauixt the trustees calling upon them to show cause why thev should not be removed. Mr White : You wrre acting as Mr Brown's solicitor when he seized under a bill of sale which had been satisfied three years ago ? Witness : That bill of sal« was withdrawn by the ad rice of counsel. Mr White: Now, was not Mr McCann in the office on Friday evening before Messrs Blyth and Bolton came in ? Did they not come in at your request ? Witness: I do not think lie was. I went over to him, aivi brought him over with the view of settling the dispute. Mr Wh'te : Was it not you who made the overtures to settle ? Witness : Overtures were made coming out m the train. Bolton said £4OO cnu'd be got for the louse, and I said if £-100 could be got for it it was not fair or equitable for McCann to hold it for £SO, and that it woull be better to settle the matter tlian go to law. Mr White : What had you to do with equity if yon had a legal claim on it ? If you considered £SO enough for it why did you not stick to it ? Witness: We thought £SO enough for it But for that Mr Brown would not have assigned it to McCann. We were astonished at the pr'ce thctiustw's ; put on it. I Mr White : You knew that there were 30 acres of linseed on it and 20 acres oats ; that 25 acres of it. were let for £25 a year, leaving only £25 for the rent of about 365 acres, and you wore lurprised that £-100 c ,uld be got for it. Witness: I was. 'this concluded the evidence, and Mr Austin said he would call his clerk His Worship did not think it was necessary. It was patent that the accused to.»k possession of this document in their official capacity as trustees, and the criminal siJe of the Court was not I the proper way of proceeding against

them, He had no hesitation in • ismissing the case. CIVIL CASES. J. l'angnej t. T. Gibson—Claim £2 lis

Judgment snmnvms. Adjourned till the 12th of February. Northam v. Wilson—Claim £& lGs sd.

Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs.

C Story v R. Gee—Claim £1 10s. Judgment by default. § S. Buxton v. John Harr, John Wright and John Buck—Claim €5 5s in the case of the two first named, and £5 5s in the case of J. Harr.

Dv Foster appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr White for defendants.

Dr Foster explained that this was an action for damages. He anticipated the question of title would crop up. The title was that the plantiff ws.s occupier of the land and had been for the. last five or six years. He quoted several authorities to show that that was sufPcicnt.

S. Buxton : I am in possession of a place known as Rangitata Island, and have been for five' years. Mr White asked for proof of title. Witness : I pay rent for it. For two months it was in the occupation of Hempson and iShiel. Tn consequence of what I heard on the 25th December 1 went in search of the p-irtu'S that, lnid caused the fire on the land. I found s?ven men and a lad. John flarr, John Wright, and John Buck were there, and I if they could give any information as to who set fire to the field. John Harr said ' I did.' He said that he did it intenti-nally. He said he had a right to go th<»re and do what he lib'd, and that he w< nl<! g" again in the afternoon I told him 1 would take an action against him The men were not on the ground wlv" 1 found thorn. From 15 to 20 aces of land were bu/ned. Wright and Buck al«o eaid tluy were there. To Mr White : The place that was on fire is sometimes divided by wat r from the place that is cropped and sometimes it is not. When I found th*, men they were on Buck's land. Harr said he would go there when he liked. He said ' Wou d you prevent mo fr»m lighting my pipe?' He had no ma'ice against me. I let the fire burn itself out. The wind wa3 high, and I could do nothing with it. Charles Totten : I can't say if the place referred to has ever been covered with water. I am accustomed to exercise my judgment as to measurement of land. The outside boundary of the fire was about 20 acres, but I can't say so much was actually burnt as it was patchy. Mr. Buxton is tenant under me.

Henry Wright: I am a cousin to one of the defendants. Buck and I were together. I said they might have, kept the matches in their socket. Iheard John Harr say that he set firs to the tussock.

To Mr White : I was one ef the seven men. 1 did not see the place set on fire, as I was not present. After a good deal of argument, judgment was given for the plaintiff for £l. J Brown v. Hornbrook-r-claira £3l 12s 7d . Mr Austin appeared for the plamtift. and Mr White for the defendant. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for amount claimed and costs. C. Story v. K. Sando—Claim £l7 4*. Mr Austin appeared for plaiitiff, and Mr Aspinall for defendant. This was an action for horse hire, The defence was that there was an agreement between defendant and plaintiff that the price would be 5s per (Uf for a horse, 7s 6d for a Wngwy, and £1 per week if the horse were kept l»y the defendant. Accounts running over aeveial- months were gone through, and judgment was given for the plaintiff for £ls and costß