RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1158, 9 October 1883, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka—Monday, Oct, 8, 1883. [Before J. Beswick. Esq., R.M., and S. D. Barker, and D. Inwood, Esqs., J.P.’s]. TRESPASS, W Damuth was fined 25s for allowing cattle belonging to him to wander on the railway. ASSAULT. Duncan Scott was charged on remand with having committed an assault on J Miller. Mr Aspinall appeared for the defendant. The police stated that the assault rose out of a drunken quarrel, and the Court allowed the case to be withdrawn. : AFFILIATION. Harriet White charged Francis Ma larkey with being the father of her illegitimate child. Mr Hamersley appeared for the complainant, and Mr White with Mr Aspinall appeared for the defence. Harriet White stated that she was 19 years of age, that she had been keeping company on intimate terms with the defendant for about three years, and that he was the father of her illegitimate daughter. She told Malarkey of her condition on New Year’s eve last, but had not spoken to him since then. In cross-examination she said she went to Timaru to consult Dr Macintyre, to whom she gave false information. She told Dr Macintyre her name was Gray, and that James Larkin was the father of her child. This she did because she wanted to conceal the matter from her parents.

W Husband, a servant in the employment of the complainant’s father, stated that Malarkey told him of bis intimacy with the complainant about two years ago, and that they had frequent conversations about it since, Malarkey told him he had not seen complainant since New Year’s eve last. He told witness this when they were going into Timaru together. Witness was going in to see complainant.

The case for the prosecution was then closed, and Mr White submitted that the case should be dismissed on the ground that the summons should have been served personally on the defendant, and that the summons itself had not been drawn properly. According to the form laid down in Johnston the defendant should have been summoned to appear before the Resident Magistrate, whereas he had been summoned before ‘ such Justices as shall be there.’ It was not proved that Malarkey had been asked to contribute to the support of the child, and it was necessary that he should have refused before.au order was made. Under these circumstances he would ask for the case to be nonsuited.

Mr Ilaraersley replied, and the Court held it had power to amend the summons. The Court, however, took a note of the objection. Mr White then proceeded to open the case for the defence. He dwelt very strongly upon the conduct of the complainant, who had admitted having been on intimate terras with the defendant for the last three years. Also upon Husband’s evidence’ who : he said had proved too much. For the defence Mrs Mary Woodley said the complainant was in her service for about fire weeks. She was one night out late. McLennan had come to her house with complainant’s sisters, but could not say that she went away with him. She had never seen her with Malarkey. Joseph Wareing saw the complainant in company with one of the Parke’s on a dark night between 8 and 10 o’clock on the road between her father’s house and Parke’s. He never saw Malarkey with her.

George Woodhead knew complainant as a servant for 13 or 14 weeks in his father’s house. On two or three occasions she remained out late. He remained up until 12 o’clock one night and she was not home then. She behaved herself like a lady in the house. He never saw Malarkey with her. Michael Carr was about 12 months ago minding cows for Mr Toner, but never saw the complainant with anyone. Mr Aspinall : Did you not tell Mr Toner you saw something 1 Witness denied it.

Mr Harnersley objected. Mr Aspinall said he could prove that the witness had made certain statements. The Court stated that it would only have the effect of proving the unreliability of his own witness. The witness, who is a boy, was allowed to go without giving any information. B Toner never saw Malarkey with the complainant, hut saw her in company with John McLennan, who was ploughman for her father, about 11 o’plock pne uight. His rarnu was about 20 or 30 chains from White’s place , Francis Malarkey, the defendant, denied being the father of the child. He had never told the witness Husband anything He went to Timaru with him and Parke. He saw the complainant in Timaru walking with Husband but did not speak to her. He was never out at night with her, and only bid her the time on New Year’s Eve in Mrs Webb’s house ; did not walk home with her. She never told him anything gbout her condition.

Mrs Webl), who was called to give rebutting evidence, stated that the complainant and defendant frequently met in her own house. On New Year’s eve she saw them at her own gate, and they went away together. It was then before dark.

Mrs White, mother of the complainant, said the defendant came often to her house at night. On two nights she put him out and told him if he was ashamed of the girl and would only come at night not to come at all. This was about last August 12 months’ and she had not seen them together since. TheR.M. said he had no doubt on his mind as regards the case, and ordered Malnrkey to pay six shillings a week for the support of the child until she was 15 years of age. It is, we understand, Mr White’s intention to appeal. CIVIL CASES. J Craig v J Daily—Claim £3B 8s 7d. Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs Siegert and Fauvel v Moynihan—Claim £l2 6s lid. Mr Aspinall appeared for the plaintiffs. Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs Job Brown v G Meredith—Claim £5 10s Judgment by default for the amount claimed and coats Henry Hodgson v J Friar—Claim £1 12s lid Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs Conrad Hoos v E Pilbrow—Claim £ll 3s 4d Mr Aspinall appeared for the plaintiff and Mr White for defendant The plaintiff stated that he was a machine owner, living at Southbridge, and came down under agreement to Mr Pilbrow to thrash linseed. (Letter put in). It was represented he would have from 40 to 50 acres to thrash. He worked until ho was stopped by Mr Parkerson ; the value of the labor done for Mr Pilbrow was £2 12s 6d, and he promised to post witness a cheque for it. The Resident Magistrate said it was a case that ought to have been settled out of Court Mr White said he had tried to settle it before, and a conversation ensued between solicitors and their clients

Mr Pilbrow : Will you allow me to ask a question your Worship 1 Mr White ; Oh, you can conduct the case altogether, if you like The Court: You arc represented by counsel; you cannot speak Mr Pilbrow : But there are many important things that have not come out, your Worship The Court: Oh, then, if you want the case to go on, we will go on with it The case then proceeded . John Woodley stated that he had arranged with Mr Pilbrow to get £1 per day for himself and his engine ; the reason the work was stopped at Parkerson’s was because they were going on too slow

Mr Pilbrow again rose, but the Resident Magistrate said he could not speak except through his counsel Mr Pilbrow : There are many important facts which my counsel will not bring out, your Worship

Mr White : Mr Pilbrow wants me to ask questions which are immaterial; he had better conduct the case himself

Mr Pilbrow did so, and in reply to him the witness Woodley said that if Mr Parkerson did not pay him he expected that Mr Pilbrow would

E Pi 1 brow then gave evidence. He said mi arrangement was come to between himself, Mr Matthews and Mr Parkerson that they should get a machine to thresh their linseed ; he want to Hoes, at Southbridge, and represented that he (witness) bad ten acres linseed, Mr Matthews ten acres, and Mr Parkerson something more ; Mr Parkerson had sent witness a letter, in which he said he would agree to this arrangement Mr Aspinall said that had nothing to do with the case

The Court : Only that it is against the defendant Mr Pilbrow continued: Hoos came down, and witness took him in a buggy to his own house, and kept him under his own roof for four days after he was done ; Mr Parkerson came and saw the machine at work, and ordered it to go to him ; Hoos worked three and a-half days for witness, and was four days waiting for horses to take the machine away; whet he was going away, witness told him he was very sorry he had given the last cheque in his book to Woodley, and that he would forward by post £2 12s 6d to him ; this he had done since. When Hoos came to him claiming payment for two and a-half days’ work done for Mr Parkerson, witness declined to pay because ho had no certificate to show that the work had been done ; Mr Parkerson afterwards sent him a cheque for the work, and he had sent that to Hoos ; when Hoos left Parkerson, witness told him he could come to his house to stay; he had been accommodated in his house as well as he could be in any hotel in New Zealand. Mr Aspinall: You got this letter (Parkerson’s), and you wanted a certificate before paying for work done 1 Mr Pilbrow ; Certainly; I had no right to pay. Mr Aspinall : You made yourself liable, at any rate. Mr Pilbrow : Oh, no, I did not. R: H. Parkerson said he stopped the work at his place because he did not like the way it was going on. He offered to pay Hoos for what had been done but he would not accept it. B. Matthews said he agreed to get his linseed thrashed by Hoos, but when he found he had been so long at Mr'Pilbrow ! s he felt it could be done cheaper by hand. This was all the evidence. It appeared that Mr Pilbrow had paid railway freight to and from Southbridge for the machine, and that he had posted a cheque to defendant for the amount he thought he was entitled to.

Judgment was given for the plaintiff for £lO 3a 6d, including £4 hotel expenses whilst waiting for thp case to be heard, and first-class railway faro to Christchurch. Mr Pilbrow said Hoos had travelled in a second class carriage, and on this being known the amount was reduced by the difference between first and second fares, reducing it to £9 11s Bd. W A Murray v. A MundeJl—slß tfs 5 Mr White appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hamersley for the defendant. W A Murray stated that on the 18th July last he saw Mr Mundell and told him

he wanted a double sealed buggv ; Mundell said he had not got one ; witness borrowed a buggy from Mr Young; he went back and told Mundell to put a horse in it and to bring it to his house, and when Mundell was bringing the horse round the accident occurred ; the buggy had to be sent to Howland’s in Christchurch to be repaired ; it cost £3 12s for carriage to and from Christchurch ;, he had to pay £2 10s for the use of the buggy to Mr Young; Mr Howland’s foreman said it would cost £l3, but he only charged£lol2s 6d for it. To Mr Hamersley : 1 did not see the accident occur; Mr Young insisted on sending it to Christchurch because it was there it was built.

J A Young stated that the buggy bad been sent to Christchurch at bis request, because no one here could do it as well. It bad been done up six months before in Christchurch ; he had charged Mr Murray £2los for the time the buggy was being repaired. He had not hired any buggy during the 5 weeks, for which he charged the L2 10s A E Cox stated that Mundell told him the mare had smashed a buggy worth £7O; witness knew the mare ; he had refused to put her into his own gig when Mundell bought her, because the gig was too light and he thought it risky A Mundell, livery stable keeper, Winchester, said he put the mare into the buggy and took her to Mr Murray’s ; he was kept waiting about ten minutes, and the mare was getting cold ; Mrs Inwood came and asked him to open the back seat; as he was opening the back seat the mare trotted away; witness would have caught the mare only that he fell down; the) mare was quiet enough, and Mr Murray had driven her before ; he had never any claim made upon him before he got the summons

To Mr White: Two men here would have repaired the buggy for what it cost to pay freight to and from Christchurch. —Bowkett, coachbuilder, in Geraldine, said he saw the buggy after the accident; he would have repaired it for £3 10s, and have put the same timber in it In cross-examination, the witness disputed that the injury was so great us was charged in Howland’s bill; the coat of putting in a shaft was 15s, whereas Howland charged 30s ; the Timaru price for a new pair of shaftes with everything new was 35s

Mr Hamersley submitted that no negligence had been proved, and that it was not necessary to have sent the buggy to Christchurch, as it could have been done in Geraldine After Mr White had replied,

His Worship said there was nothing to show that the repairs could not have been done in Geraldine , Bowkett said there were only 5 spokes required, and Mr Howland charged for 22 spokes. Taking the whole thing into consideration he would give judgment for £8 and costs. C Massey v E Forward—Claim £4 4s. Mr Hamersley appeared for the defendant. This was for the services of a horse in 1877 The defence was that the mare did not prove in foal The case was nonsuited The Court then rose.