RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1293, 22 January 1885, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Geraldine—Tuesday, Jan. 20, 1885. [Before H. 0. Baddeley, Esq., R.M.] CIVIL cases. Judgment by default was given for plaintiff in the cases R. H. Pearpoint v. H. Bourne, claim £2, and Same v. R. Williams, claim £4 5s sd. R, H. Pearpoint v. John Goodall— Claim £lO 10s. Dr Foster appeared lor defendant. Defendant was sued as administrator of the estate of the late Mr F. Abrams, but proof was pot in that the defendant was not administrator and plaintiff therefore asked that a nonsuit be granted. He was not aware till the case was brought into Court that the defendant wasi not the administrator. —The Bench granted the nonsuit with one guinea costs. Same r. W. Weston—Claim £7 7s 4d for goods supplied. —Defendant admitted the claim but asked for time, as he was out of work.—The Bench made an order that he should pay at the rate of £1 per month for three months, and then £2 per month till the claim was satisfied. G. Davie r. Geo. Ward—Claim £29. Adjourned, on application of plaintiff’s counsel, for a fortnight. Solicitor’s fee, one guinea, was allowed. The case of Glass v. Spence was further adjourned for a month to allow of the defendant’s evidence being taken elsewhere. A. McKay r. C. A. Lloyd—Claim £4. The amount was paid into Court. This case was brought before the Magistrate for him to decide whether Lloyd or one McKay was entitled to the amount paid into Court. C. A. Lloyd, sworn, said ; Proceedings were taken against It. Shilling for rent of studio or auction room, and bis goods were seized under warrant on the 6th January. He owed £4. I acted as assistant bailiff under Mr Sherratt’s orders. While I was away on the Bth Shilling entered the premises ami removed the goods on to the footpath. I sent for the bailiff, Mr Sberratt, who retook possession and advised me to get a cart and take the things away to a safer place. Shilling pleaded hard to have the things and I let him take them on the understanding that they were to be pui back into my rooms and sold, so that he could pay me the amount of my claim. He instead of doing that took them to MundelTs auction rooms, I had a fresh warrant taken out next day and it was executed by the bailiff. An acquittance was given on the morning of the 10th for money paid into Court by Shilling before I knew anything about McKay having purchased the goods from Shilling. Shilling said he got £25 from McKay for them. C. B. Sberratt, Bailiff to the Resident Magistrate’s Court, sworn, said : I took possession of Shilling’s goods in Mr Lloyd’s studio, under i warrant given me by Mr Lloyd, The claim was £4 for rent, and the value of the goods seized was about £4O. McKay was there, and I bad good reason for thinking he was a servant of Shilling’s. I asked McKay for the key of the door and he refused to give it up. 1 then asked Lloyd to remain in possession as bailiff, and he agreed to do so. Mr Willoughby came to me about eleven o’clock at night on the Bth, and in consequence of what he said I went up and found the goods on the footpath packed in a case and cask. I immediately began to put them back into the room. Shilling refused to allow me to lak>them, and I asked Lloyd whether 1 was to remove them, and be ultimately told me to let the goods go on con sideration that he (Lloyd) received his expenses, 13s, as assistant bailiff. The goods were then removed by Shilling with our leave. The next morning Lloyd gave me another warrant, and on this warrant I entered again into possession of the goods in Mondell’s stables. Shilling told me the goods belonged to McKay, be having sold them to him on the morning of the 9tb, I insisted upon holding possession, and McKay said he would interplead, and did so. There was no stipulation that the goods were to be removed into Lloyd’s room by Shilling. I gave him leave to remove them by Mr Lloyd’s consent. Will. Willoughby, constable, was called, and gave similar evidence to the above as to what took place between the parties when the goods were re-seized. He also said Shilling told him the sale to McKay was a bogus one, and McKay admitted it. A. McKay was called, but did not appear. His Worship considered from the evidence that the sale was a bogus one to [defraud Mr Lloyd of bis money,

Mr Lloyd had, by the way he had acted in giving up possession of the goods, almost lost all claim on them. It was for the Bench to decide whether Lloyd or McKay was to receive the money paid into Court, and he would decide that the former was entitled to it. This being all the business the Court adjourned till Monday, 2nd February. TEMUKA. Wednesday, Jan. 21, 1885. [Before S. D. Barker, and J. Talbot, Esqs., J.P.’s.] POLLUTING A STREAM. Stephen Spillane was brought up charged with having drowned a dog in a stream used by the public. The defendant admitted the charge, but denied that he knew it was an offence. The stream was not used by the public. The Bencli informed the defendant that he had committed an offence punishable by a fine of £5, but as this was the first case of the kind that had come before them they would inflict the nominal fine of ss, NEGLECTING TO VACCINATE. William Cassidy was charged on the information of Mr B. I). (THalloran, Registrar of Births, Deaths, and Marriages, with having neglected to vaccinate his child. Mrs Cassidy appeared in answer tojthe summons, and produced a certificate to show that the child wasdead and had been buried four months ago. It appears that the birth of the child was registered In Temuka, but that the parents afterwards removed to Geraldine, where the child was buried. Mr O’Halloran had therefore no official knowledge of the death of the child, as the death was registered in Geraldine. Ho consented under the circumstances to withdraw the case. Mrs Cassidy complained of having been put to the trouble of attending the Court. She had written to Mr O’Halloran etating the child was dead. She asked that her expenses should bo paid.— The Bench said her expenses could not be allowed. As Mr O’Halloran bad no official knowledge of the death of the child he could not do otherwise than bring the case before the Court. It was no doubt a case of hardship, but there was no help for it.—The case was withdrawn. George Latimer was charged with a similar offence, but, Mr O’Halloran having obtained the certificate since the issue of the summons, the case was withdrawn. Adam Edgar was similarly charged. It appeared that Mr Edgar’s child was vaccinated by Dr Fish, of Geraldine, that Dr Fish being a public vaccinator was bound to send in a certificate of vrccination, and that he he did not do so. On this ground the case was withdrawn. Mr Edgar cemplained of having been taken away from saving his hay, but the Bench said there was no help tor it, and there was no provision for allowing bis expenses. Henry Qoodey was charged with a similar offence.—Mrs Goodey explained that Dr Campbell vaccinated the child but the vaccination was not successful. The child then got ill, and the doctor would not vaccinate her while she was in that state. She was teething, but she bad now recovered sufficiently well to be vaccinated again. This was done yesterday.—ln this case a conviction was recorded but no fine inflicted. Edwin Williams was also charged with a similar offence.—-The defendant ex plained that the child had been vaccinated successfully by Dr Campbell and he thought that Dr Campbell had forwarded the certificate to Mr O’Hnlloran. Dr Hayes had veccinated two of his children previously and forwarded the certificates, and he thought Dr Campbell would have done the same—The Bench explained to him that Dr Hayes, being a public vaccinator, was bound to do so, but that Dr Campbell, being only a private practitioner, was not bound to do it. Under these circumstances the defendant was bound to forward the certificate himself. The case, however, was withdrawn, but they hoped the defendant and others would take notice of this in future, as it would save a lot of trouble. The Court then adjourned.