RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1369, 23 July 1885, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka —Wednesday, July 22, 1885. [Before J. Beswick, Esq., R.M.] effigy burning. On the names of persons summoned for taking part in the recent effigy burning being called Mr Lynch, who appeared forjthe defendants, applied for an adjournment on the ground that an important witness was absent. The Magistrate said he had no objection to the adjournment provided they entered into a bond of £lO each to appear that day fortnight. This was agreed to. At a subsequent period Mr Lynch said that to make out the bonds would necessitate the payment of 7s each, and asked His Worship not to insist on the bond being entered into. He did not like to mention it before, but he might now say that if the police had served the summonses as soon as they ought there would have been no necessity for an adjournment, His Worship agreed not to insist on bonds being entered into provided Mr Lynch guaranteed the defendants would appear next Court day. Mr Lynch did so, and the difficulty was got over. STRAY CATTLE. Samuel Pearce was fined 5s for allowing a horse belonging to him to wander on the public streets. ASSAULT. The case of assault, J. F. Douglas v. M. Quinn was adjourned for a fortnight, as the defendant was absent in Dunedin. UPSETTING A NIGHT CAST. W. H. Forsyth, and W. H. Amyes, were charged with having on the 15th inst upset a cart of nightsoil on the public, street. The accused pleaded not guilty. • James Davis: I am scavenger at Temuka. On the morning of the 16th inst. X left my cart at the railway gates to go to the railway closets, i heard people amongst the machinery on Messrs Henry and Findlay’s land. I found my cart tipped up and its contents over the street. Robert Blyth came up and said “You have got a mess here.” He went on and I got my cart up. It was about a quarter to two o’clock. Robert Blyth : I remember speaking to Davis at the railway gates. I never saw anything except the cart tipped up. Thomson and Forsyth were with me before J2 o’clock but not after that. I was not amongst the machinery at Henry and Findlay’s and knew nothing of the cart being capsized. Thomas Thompson ; I was not at Henry and Findlay’s forge on the night in question. 1 went to bed at a few minutes past 11 o’clock and Forsyth went to bed at the same time. His Worship said there was no evidence against the accused, and dismissed the case. LARCENY.

Edward Walker and Albert Leonard, two Maoris, were charged with stealing wood from the Temuka Bridge. Mr Aepinall appeared for the defence. James Pbilp, contractor for the Temuka Bridge, said he missed several pieces of timber. Found some of them on the premises of Edward Walker, in the stock* yard. The value of all the timber was 265. Never gave the Maoris any authority to take the timber. Was in company with the police in making the search. To Mr Aspinall; Deny having given authority to anyone to take the wood. Did not know who owned the section on which the timber was found. Edward Smith was present at the search, and found pieces of timber on Walker’s section and the wheel-guard on Leonard’s section, Leonard said he found the timber on the road, and he threw it over the fence into his place. To Mr Aspinall; Found three pieces in Walker’s yard. Leonard took me to where the timber was. Never gave the Maori boys any authority to take the timber. Constable Morton gave evidence to the effect that the timber was found on the premises as described, Ha arrested Leonard for stealing the wheel-guard. Mr Aspinall said he would show that Leonard bad found the wheel-guard on the road, and threw it over the fence for fear any horse would shy at it. Edward Walker, cne of the defendants, said he had been to the Waitaki, and when he returned he found the wood before him. He asked about it, and ths boys told him they got it for picking up a hammer out of the river. When Pliilp came he showed him the pieces the boys fetched. The boys told him they got it for picking the hammer out of the river. Albert Leonard, another of the defendants, said that last Monday he found a piece of timber lying across the road, and ho pulled it into his own place for fear any horse would shy at it. His Worship did not think the evidence sufficient to convict, but it was a proper case for the Police to bring before the Court. He cautioned the defendants against allowing their boys to bring wood to their places, and dismissed the case. CIVIL CASES. Thomson and Smith v. James Smith —Claim £l7 18s 6d.—Judgment by default. W. Bryan v. E. Sheedy—Claim £lolos. Mr Aspinall appeared for plaintiff and Mr Lynch for defendant. Mr Lynch applied for a nonsuit on the ground that the particulars were not sufficient. Mr Aspinall asked that the case be adjourned, and this was granted on pay- ’ ment of costs. Moorhead v. Gregg.—Claim £3B lid. - This case was adjourned for a fortnight. John Craig v. J. Moynihan—Claim £1 7s, —Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs. M. Dunn v. J, Tangney—Claim £ll4s. —Tha plaintiff stated he had given the defendant three pairs of boots to repair, and he never got them back. The defendant said the boots were destroyed in the fire. His Worship ; Were you insured 1 Defendant: Yes, Your Worship. His Worship : Then you will have to pay this amount. Judgment for the amount claimed and costs. W. Wyatt v. Job Brown—Claim £3O. Mr Toswill appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Aspinall for defendant. William Wyatt: The goods that were taken belonged to me. The bailiff came in, and asked me for the rent. I told him that I had nothing to do with it:

that Mrs Uprichard was away. The bailiff removed the goods. I told him lie could not remove them under five clear davs, lie said he had instructions to do” so. I said 1 was not going to resist him, and then helped him, as I did not want to see the things broken, I assisted the bailiff so as to prevent damage. 1 had an interpleader case in this Court last year when the goods were seized, and the Court decided then that the goods belonged to me. The house and property belonged to me, but I made it over to Mr Brown to secure the payment of 7s fid in the £ to Mr Uprichard’s creditors. I never rented the house from Mr Brown. To Mr Aspinall: The goods were in my possession over ten years. The premises belonged to Lpricbard at one time, and I bought them. I lived in the house with Mrs Uprichard. 1 did not know the house belonged to Brown, I thought he held it only as security for paying the 7s fid in the £. Uprichard told me Brown was not going to charge rent. Brown overhauled Uprichard’e | effects for me after XJprlchard’s death. I told the bailiff the goods were mine, and that they were under bill of sale. Mr Aspinall: Was Uprichard's name in the bill of sale 1 Mr Tosswill: Here is the bill of sale. Uprichard’s name is not in it. Mr Aspinall : Ah ! I see now where the action is coming from, Mr Tosswill: From the public of Tenmka, I think. Witness : I never gave notice to MiBrown that the goods were mine. I told Mr Brown that Mr Ziesler had renewed the bill of sale over my furniture in Mr Uprichard’s house. The bill of sale included all the items. The goods were seized either on Monday or Tuesday, and Mr Brown spoke to me on Friday. He did not (ell me I could have the boiler back. Mrs Uprichard ; My husband died on the 7th or Bth of March. I received an account in April for rent. Never spoke to Brown about renting the house. Received no notice about removal of goods. This concluded the plaintiff’s case, and the following witnesses were examined for the defence , Job Brown produced the title deeds of the property. It belonged to Mr Uprichard, but he transferred it to his father-in-law so as to defeat his creditors. Wyatt sold the house to me on condition that I should pay Uprichard’s creditors 7s fid in the £. When Uprichard died I rendered the account as usual. Wyatt told me the bill of sale had been renewed, and would come due on the Ist June—and that I had better seize before that time. After the goods were seized I asked W.yatt had the bailiff taken anything he wanted. He said “No, except a boiler,” and I said he could take it or anything else he wanted. The sale realised £9 13s. After the goods were seized ho told me he had written to Moody and Zeisler, who held the bill of sale, as a matter of form. Moody and Ziesler wrote to me on the subject asking what I intended doing, and I replied and heard no more. I received letters from Mr Tosswill asking for account of sales. Wyatt told me to seize the goods before the bill of sale expired. Smce the summons was issued Wyatt said he had nothing to do with it, and had not given instructions to summons. To Mr Tosswill: I had heard of the interpleader summons, and that the goods belonged to Wyatt. The sale took place on Saturday. I swear Wyatt told me to take the goods. J. J. Heap ; On the 18th May, acting as bailiff for Mr Brown, I seized the goods. Wyatt said that was what he expected ; Moody and Ziesler had a bill of sale over them. Mr Brown told me to use my ovm judgement and leave what was necessary for the family. Wyatt asked me for two ornaments and 1 gave them to him, 1 did not remove anything out of Mrs Uprichard’s ro«m. Wyatt laid no claim to the goods. The goods sold well. I took good care of them. To Mr Tossill; Did not; • know the goods belonged to Wyatt, l » I do not know whether I seized the same goods before. I may have heard of an interpleader case. K. F. Gray gave evidence to the effect that the furniture brought fair prices. W, Wyatt recalled : I instructed you, Mr Tosswill, to take these proceedings. I never told Mr Brown I had not, I told Mr Brown that X had given instructions, but that I did not think you would think it worth while to go on with the case. Mr Aspinall urged that if the goods belonged to Wyatt he had not taken the proper steps. He had a right to replevy before the five days. He also urged that a landlord had a right to distrain for rent on the effects of a tenant at will. Mr Tosswill pointed out that Woodfall’s “ Landlord and Tenant ” laid down that when goods were seized on Monday or Tuesday they should not be sold before the following Monday. Here they were sold on the following Saturday. The plaintiff had not been allowed the legal time to replevy. Notice of the seize should have been given in writing. His real point was that the tenancy expired with the death of Uprichard ; that it was illegal to distrain after that, and that the proper course would have been to sue Mrs Uprichard for use and occupation. His Worship reserved judgment until next Court day.