RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1258, 28 October 1884, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka—Monday, Oct. 27, 1884,

[Before S. D. Barker, Esq., J.P.]

ALLEGED THREATENING LANGUAGE.

John Carter charged Andrew Webb with having on the 22nd October last made use of language calculated to cause a breach of the peace. He pleaded not guilty. John Carter, the complainant, gave evidence to the effect that on the 22nd Oct. last, after leaving the Court at the conclusion of a case in which he had been charged with trespass, he called at the Royal Hotel to get a glass of beer on his way home. He was talking to a shipmate, when accused came and said Don’t you have anything to say against ray wife.’ - He told accused that he did not wish to have anything to do with h’s wife. Accused use . lad language. In reply to the Bench, witiuss stateu that accused said “ If ever you say anything about mo or my wife I will knock your ■■——head off.” He told accused there was a law to stop him doing that. In cross-examination by accused, the witness denied that he commenced the row. He did not accuse Webb’s wife of perjury. When Webb came into the hotel he did not say that a man could not shoot a hare without being informed on. He did not mention a hare, [Accused here ejaculated : “ Well, you did. You mentioned it twice.”] H. White was called as a witness for the complainant. He stated that on the 22nd Oct. be remembered Mr Carter going into the bar of the Royal, and Mr Webb was talking to another gentleman. Carter said “It appears a man cannot shoot a bare without being informed on.” Webb got up, put his hand on Carter’s shoulder, and said : “ You have been shooting hares several times ; but I never informed against yon. What mv wife did was quite right.” Webb also said ; “ I am not going to hit you, old man.” Carter: If he had not done more than put his band on my shoulder, he would not have knocked down my glass of beer. To witness : Did he not swear what he would do to me ? Witness : He did not. You are the man that callsd his wife a liar, by saying that she had not told -lie truth in the Court.

To the Bench : I never heard accused say he would knock his —— hend off. I only heard him eay “ I am not going to hit you, old man.” His Worship dismissed the case, Carter to pay costs. CIVIL'CASES. The only civil case heard was that of Heap against Phillips, in which plaintiff claimed a refund from the defendant of ±,l 9s, which he had paid on his account for a release of the defendant’s deeds from the County of Geraldine Building Society, of which he was Secretary. John Heap stated that he made a claim against Phillips for £1 9s, he having paid that amount to Mr Aspinall for the release. The amount should have been paid by Phillips, as was shown by the rules of the Society. [The witness here handed His lYorship a copy of the rules, wherein clause 37 it was stated that “ the member entitled to a release can obtain the same (should he so wish) by reconveyance, reassignment, or surrender, as the case may be, prepared by the solicitor to the Society, at the cost of such member.”] Clause 37 showed that the cost of the release was to be paid by any member and not by the Society. The release had not b?en paid for by Phillips. He made a formal demand on Mr Phillips for the money. He said to him : “ Look at the rules.” Phillips said he did not care for the rules ; he would engage Mr Hamersley to defend the case. The defendant cross-examined the witness at great length, bis object being to show that the plaintiff paid the money without being authorised so to do by him. This Heap admitted, but he said that previously Phillips was “ a good payer, and he thought he would pay this also.” Phillips’ wife was bothering him every day for the deeds. He also admitted that when he handed the deeds over to Phillips he was not thoroughly conversant . with the rules of the Society, and he believed he might have said that there was nothing more to pay. The defendant said he held that when he received the release of mortgage by the rules of the Society all claims had been settled.

W. G. Aspinall deposed that he prepared the release of mortgage. It was the recognised practice in jelease of mortgages that the mortgagor pays for the release. He told Heap that he should hold the release until it was paid for. Heap came to him and got the deeds, de made him give him a promise that he would pay for the release. In cross-exarainatiop by. the defendant, the witness stated that, as far as he was aware, Heap authorised him to make out the release. Phillips did not make any claim on him for the deeds, but his wife did. He did not give them to her as they were then in Christchurch. He sent Phillips the account. He had to threaten that he would summons Heap for the amount before he was paid. George Phillips, the defendant, stated that he never authorise*! Heap to pay the. amount for him or anyone. When Heap handed the deeds to him he asked him whether there was anything to pay, and he sail No.” Two months alter, wards Heap demanded the amount. Mr Aspinall demanded £1 7s and Heap £1 9s. He acknowledged rec-dving the account from Mr Aspinall, hut he could not say whether it was before nr after be bad received the deeds. In

reply to the Bench he repeated that he would not swear when he received the account.

Mr Aspinall was recalled to prove that the account was posted before the deeds were given up. His Worship said Phillips evidently received the account before he got the release. The only thing he appeared to object to was that the amount bad hern paid for him. Well, in the oidinary course of things he would not have got a'release until the amount had been paid. He had no option but to give judgment for plaintiff, with costs. Hie Court then adjourned.