RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1250, 9 October 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka—Wednesday, Oct. 8, 1884.

[Before H. W. Robinson Esq., R,M., and D. Inwood, Esq., J.P.] OBSCENE LANGUAGE. John McLennan was chargod with having made use of obbcane language. Constable Casey gave evidence to the effect, that whilst at Orari on the previous d;iy he had heard the accused making use of obscene language in the passage of the hotel there. Countable Morton said there wore other witnesses, but His Worship discharged the accused without further consideration. THREATENING TO BURN. Thornns Nelson -was charged with having unlawfully threatened to burn a house at Mil ford. His Worship asked what the accused was there for. Constable Morton said he attempted, to burn the house of his mother. His Worship: Attempted to burn the house ! Why that is felony ! It is no use taking this case under the Justices of the Peace Act, for if you charge him with having attempted to burn he will be in for a crime. Constable Morton explained that he w-if the son of the woman whose bouse he threatened to burn. His mother had a sore foot and was unable to attand. His Worship said hs would discharge the accused, but he should understand that if anything occurred again he would be imprisoned and whipped. The accused is about 16 yean of age, and is a brother of the lad Nelson who has been before the Court a couple of times recently. THREATENING LANGUAGE. George Ramsay was charged with having made use of threatening language to Richard Young. Richard Young : On Thursday the 2nd, on the public road at Winchester, the accused was using obscene language, and witness threatened to go for a constable. The accused came up and said : " You are iust the I hive been wanting to have a crack at. If you lay an information against me I'll lay you up tor a few weeks in bed, if I get ten years for it." The accused cross-exam ned the witness to show that instead of beiDgin the middle of the road he wa« standing inside the kerbstone. E. Tappenden heard accused «ay be i would lay complainant up in bed for a few week* if he laid an information against him. The accused said it was race time and he had had a whiskey or two. One gentleman summoned him because he refused to drink with him. He had been locked-up since Monday when he came in to do bis business. The same prisoner was charged on the information of Peter Coira with having on the same day at Winchester used obscene language. Accused admitted having used obscene words, but very slight ones. Peter Coira said he pulled up at Winchester and accused said to the horse : " Go along you—, I wish you would break his neck. I wish I could see you (Coira) hung or shot, and 1 would like to have the job." The accused said be did not remember anything about it. The same accused was charged with having used threatening language to Peter Coira at Winchester. Peter Coira said he had two females in the trap with him and accused challenged him to come out and he would break his neck. He also used very bad language. Witness did not know whether it was a piece of a stick or stone accused flung after the trap. Ir. reply to the accused witness said be could not say that it was not the first summons he had in his hands and not a stone. In reply to the Court, Constable Morton said accused had been frequently conricted of similar offences. There was not " a more incorrigible being in the whole districts." His Worship: You are fined £3, or seven days' imprisonment, for the case of Young, and the same penalty in the case of Coira together with costs, £6 in all, or 14 days' imprisonment. ASSAULT. William Hooper was charged with having assaulted George Levens whilst in the execution of hi 3 duty ns landlord's bailiff. The defendant denied the charge. George Levens said he was acting as bailiff, and accused pushed him off the premises snying he had no right there. He next went with Constable Morton, and accused said Quinn had no right there. I

To defendant: You told me it was Crown land, and that Quinn had no right to it ; and that you had sent Quinn a bill for £69 wrongfully obtained. Joseph Hutt; Saw Hooper shove Levens out of the shop three times. The defendant put in a letter from the Crown Lands Department and a bill sent to Quinn. He resisted the case merely to test it. G. Levens said it was not on a Cemetery reserve. The defendant said it wm : that people were buried there. G. Levens : People ware buried there right enough, but they were buried there by mistake. VV. Hooper said he had never leased the laud from Quinn. It was a Cemetery reserve, and he had no lease of it. The Court said it was a case of disputed title, and declined to go into it. The case was dismissed. TRESPASS. James Davis was charged with allowing 10 cows belonging to him to wander on a portion of the railway. The charge was admitted, and as it ?w*s the first offence he was let off with a fine of £2 10s and coats. John Elder was charged with having allowed one cow belonging to him to wander on the railway, and was fined 5s and costs. CIVIL CASES. Job Browu v. M. Wightman—Claim £66 5s sd. Judgment summons 1 Mr Hamersley appeared tor the defendant. Plaintiff stated that on the 7th of August he went into Timaru to see some wheat belonging to Wightman, and was showed 7000 bußbels of wheat belonging to him. Wightman had called a meeting of his creditors, and said he waw going to file. He sold his stock for £7OO, and said afterwards he was sorry he could not pay, witness. He had found Maclean and Stewart had £2OO belonging to Wightman. Mr Hamersley raised the question that the defendant had not been given conduct money from Rakaia where he lived. It was shown that the summons had been served in Temuka, and George Bolton and the Clerk of the Court were called as witnesses to show that defendant lived in this district as much as anywhere else. About half-an-hour was spent in discussing this point, but ultimately His Worship decided not to allow it. The examination of Job Brown was continued. He said he was given an order by the manager of the Farmers' Co-operative Association to see M. Nightman's wheat. He did not knew the wheat belonged to his brother-in-law. K. F. Gray stated he was Chairman of the meeting of creditors of M. Wightman. A verbal statement was made about the amount of £7OO realised by the sale. Thare was a proposition that he should pay 103 in the £. They afterwards got an offer of 2s 6d. All they got out of him about the £7OO was that he paid it as far as it would go. Witness then read the minutes of the meeting. Wightman said he had £5 in his pocket. He did not put in the grain as assets. He showed no asset* at all.

Mr Hamersley urged that there was no evidence to show that the defendant bad had means to pay since the judgment was taken out against him. After some further discussion an order was made that the defendant pay within seven days, or in default three months's imprisonment with hard labor. Commissioner of Crown Lands v. Geo. Thorpe. Mr White appeared on behalf of the Government, and stated the action had been brought to recover possession of a deferred payment section. Constable Burke stated he delivered notice on the defendant. The section was not improved. W. H. Shaw, record Clerk in the Waete Lands Board Office, produced Gazette* containing Mr Kitson's appointment as Commissioner, and Mr Fußsell's appointment as Ranger. There was a breach of the conditions by non-payment of instalments.

There was no appearance of the defendant.—Judgment was giv-n for the plaintiff. Commissioner of Crown Lands v. W. Orinond. This was a similar cise, and as there was no appearance of defendant judgment was given for the plaintiff. Join Cunnard v. Pulford Claim £3 9s sd. The sum of £2 bad been paid, and judgment was given for the balance and costs.

Official Assignee in the estate of James Walker v. J. Beri—Claim £24 17s 9d.

Mr Hamersley lor the plaintiff, aud Mr White for defendant.

In this case Beri took possession under distress warrant, of goods belonging to Walker. It was alleged that he sold them knowing at the same time that Walker had filed.

! William Wills, Clerk of the Court, produced a distress warrant dated August il; also account sales of the goods of Walker. Received a telegram from the Clerk of the Court, of Timaru, that Walker had filed and told Beri I should not allow the bailiff co sell unless ho persisted. Beri hesitated for some time, , but thou persisted and gave me an I indemnitv. The balance in hand had been ■ paid to Walker himself. To Mr White: Walker came m and asked for copy of account sales and I referred him to the bailiff. I believe the bniliff gave him the account sales and paid him a balance of 15s 3d. K. F. Gray, auctioneer, deposed to having sold the goods on the 16th August. Geo. Levens stated that that he seized the goods and paid 15s 3d over to For the defence, James Walker was called but did not appear. W. C. Beswick, Deputy Assignee, was called and produced the papers of Walker's bankruptcy. He was plaintiff, but never heard of the action until he got the subpoena. He had not given instructions. Mr Hamersley said that had nothing to do with it.

Mr White said it was rather strange that Mr Beswick was the plaintiff, and he knew nothing about it. After some further discussion it was alleged that Mr Knubley, the solicitor of the Official Assignee, had given instructions.

Mr White commented on James Walker not having answered to his name, He pointed out that in the list filed by Walker no assets were set down. The Assignee could not get the furniture

because it was exempted from the operation of the Act. Mr Hamersley said the date of the bn.k ruptoy was the forenoon of the 16th August, •nd the ssle took place in the si ternoou of the name day. He urged that the furniture became the property of the assignee the moment Walker filed. His Worship said he had considered clause 64 of the Act, and had oome to the eoi-c:u-■ion that the whole cf the property was vested in the assignee. The limitation of section 71 and 72 applied as to what was to be done with the property, and he could only take it that the property was vested ia tbo assignee. Mr White said that as the adju.iicttim took place before the sale the exemption under clause 71 would apply. He atked fur a written derision. He ooiAendod that from the moment the adjuoioation took place the furniture was no longer vested in' the assignee. After some further discussion, 'judgment was given for the amount the defendant actually received ; that is, £7 7a. Mr White applied for leave to appeal, which was granted, Mr Hamersley applied for costs. Mr White said Walker had been playing abiding game all through. He had sworn he had no property and immediately atter wards set the law in motion to get these goods, and he was not now present in Court to give evidence. Mr Hamersley called upm Mr Wnite to moderate his Uncage. There was nothing in the prooeeuings as regards Walker that would justify the oaating of such imputations on hia character. His Worship allowed the ocsts of the Court only, amounting to 15s. He did not wish that Beri should be anything out of pooket if he could help it. The Singer Sewing Machine Company v. J. Beri—Claim £ls.—This was an aotion to reoover the value of a Singer's sewing machine ttken and sold under distress warrant. Mr Bameriley appeared for the plaintiff sad Mr White for the defendant. George Levens deposed to having seizsd the goods, but the maohine was not seizad Tinder the warrant produced. (A document was put in showing the machine was seizau under the warrant) The witness oontinuei to explain that the machine had been seized by the landlord under distraint for rent. He took it down to the auction room with the rest of the goods. He saw Mr Mitchell, of the Sieger's Company. He said. " You have another of our maobiaes." Witness ■aid, "Very likely." Mr Hamersley having spoken Tather gramy to the witness, Mr White said he had no right to "bully-rag " nia own witnesß. Mr Hamersley asked whether Mr White wf.b present to take oare of him (Mr Hamerslej) Ho hoped he would take care of his client instead. Mr White said Mr Hamersley had no right to treat hia own witness as a hostile witness. His Worship said he had not, and after a few shots between the lawyers, the witness replied to Mr Hamersley to the effect that he had not told Mr Mitchell be had se'z .d the m*ohine for Beri. He had not told iHr Godwin so either. In reply to Mr White the witness s-ud t>-e goods, including the machine, wera *e zad under distraint for rent as well as uuder the execution warrant. His instructions the Clerk of the Court were not to seize the machine. Mr White said the case broke down there IE the maohine had been Beizsd against instructions Beri could not be hold responsible fjrit. His Worehip said ho was not prepared to stop the case at this stags. Witness in reply to &r White said the maohine had been sold under distraint fo; rent. He settled with Mr Walker and guve bim the belance realined fr m the sale Ha produced a-reoeiptfor Is Bd, the balance after the sale of the goods under distraint fjr rent. He also produced »n inventory show ing that tie machine had been taken under distraint for rent. William Mitchell, Manager of the Sowing Maohine Company in Timaru, said ho taw LeveDs' and he told witness he had teizid 'ho mabhirie for Beri. O G-dwin stßted he had heard Lovene gay it was hf'zed under Ueri's warrant. The value of the mftchins was £lO 6s. Mr White taid there was no case against Beri and afkel for judgment for the defen danfc. His Worship aaid there was no case against the defendant. Judgment would be given for the defendant with costs; £1 1», soli eitors's fee ; £1 Is, witness' fee; and 4i costs of tbe Court. W. Aokroyd v. F. Franks—Claim £l4 9j 61. The 9r 4d was paid into Court. Mr White appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hamersley for defesdanfc. A plea of complete execution of a Deed of Arrangement was put in, and Mr Hamersley pointed out that the debt with the exception of the last item was prior to the deed. Tae 803onnt was admitted as correct, and there was only the question of the Deed of Arrangement. A copy of the deed was put in, but M* White objected that it waß n >t the original dooument. The question in dispute then was the date'of filing of the deed, but after a long discussion this was mutually agreed to, and the case proceeded. As the correctness of the account was admitted, it became then purely a question of law. It appeared that though the defendant had undertaken to pay 6s in the £he had not done so, aud it was held by Mr White that in csnsequencs of thatthe defendant was liable for the who!e smounfc About an hour had been spent in dis cussing this piini; clauses of Acts and judgments of learned J <sdsrs were cited on either side, aud the subject thoroughly thrashed out. After some consideration His Worship said the deoisions cited by Mr White were in favor of the plaintiff's contention. Upon considering the matter tbe whole point hinged upon whether the composition bad been paid. If it had been paid it would be no good, but the authorities quoted, were sufficient to justiiy tbe Court in taking what was a common sense yiew of the ease, and give judgment for the plaintiff. The whole question was the jurisdiction of the Court, and the Bankruptcy Court could restrain execution if this Court had exceeded its powers. It would probably be well before execution was taken out, to obtain the leave of the other Court. Judgment was given for the amount claimed and costs. - Mr Hamersley asked for leave to appeal. Mr White stated that there was a judgment against the defeudunt already and be was likely to file. He desired that the money should be paid into Court.„until the appeal was considered. Mr Hamersley said it was customary to give security, and that was enough. After a good deal of discussion His Worship decided to' leave it to substantial security being given for the amount of tbe judgment and costs. The Court then rose.