RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Temuka Leader, Issue 1616, 4 August 1887, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Temuka—Wednesday, Augusts, 1887.

(Before J. Ollivier, Esq., R.M.) CHIMNEY ON MBK. W. H. Hargreavee was charged with allowing a chimney to take fire, oontrary to the Town by-laws. Fined 103, and ooits 7j. OOWONTfIEHHH. George Latimer was charged with allowing a oow to wander on the lino on July 26th, Constable Strickland proved the of* enoo. Fined lOi and costs. INEBBIATB. A first offender for being drunk in the publio street was fined 5i and oosts; in default, 24 hours. OiriL OASB3. W. Klee v. Ohaß. Km— olaim 18a. Judgment by default with coiti. J. Biegert v. W. Lewis—Olaitn £1 5l 3 J. Judgment by dof*ult with eosts. MAIHTBNANCH. Mr Wood applied for an order for tho arreet of James Henderson, who had failed to comply with a maintenance order made dome 13 months ago, and who was endeavoring to evide the police. The order was granted. BIIIi OJ BALB OASB. Henry Eagle v. Julius diegert—-Olaim £9llos, for the value of horses wrongfully seised under bill of tale. J

Mr Hay for plaintiff and Mr White for dofondant.

This oase was adjourned from the previous Bitting of the Oourt. Mr White explained that ho had been requested to canduot the oase in place of Mr Aspinal), as it was necessary that the latter should give evidence. He wished to examine the plaintiff at to certain transactions, but he would not go oyer old ground. Henry Eagle was called, and stated that he bought certain horses from Thomas Hennessy, who was a ploughing contractor at Fairlie Greek. He paid £72 tot the horses, partly by a oheque of Hedley'fl, of Seadown (for £ls), and partly in notes. Earned the money principally at Seadown, and partly from 8. Gain. Did not keep a banking account at the time. The horsei bought from Hennessy were branded SO on the off rump, Denied baring said in Mr Aspinall's office that SO was his brother-in-law's brand. If oontradioted by three witnesses would still say that he had made no mistake about that. Had sold four of the horses purchased from Hennessy to William Eagle. (Java him a reoeipt for the horses. Did not give four reoeipts. The receipts produced he recognised. They were in his writing, but referred to another transaction. He first sold his brother the horses mentioned in the receipt, but Mb brother re* gretted the bargain, so he sold him the four bought from Hennessy. His brother promised to giro him the reoeipts. John Byan Hennessy, farmer at Fairlie Greek, knew a man named Thomas Hennessy, He was a shearer, and used to stop at Fairlie Greek occasionally. Never knew him to own any draught horses. Did not know any other man of that name. It there had been others felt sure he would have heard of them,

William Eagle, brother of plaintiff, recollected buying horses from plaintiff in May 1885. Knew the horses well. Only one was branded. Knew the horses and had worked them at Braddiok'a before his brother bought them. Gave his brother £9 cash, and got £6O from Siegert for the horses. Baoolleoted being in Aspinall's offioe, where the bill of sale was signed. Henry promised to brand the horses SO. Did not know if SO was Gain's brand. Had never |reoeived from Henry any horse*, nor instructed bim to put horses in a paddock for me. Never knew him to own any horses except those bought from Braddiok and the crooked legged one. Gross-examined t Did not know the mare " Blossom.' ; Gould not swear that his brother did not own horses without witness' knowledge. Was positive the hones purchased by Henry from Braddick were those mentioned in the Bill of ale. Beplying to His Worship, witness said that he signed the Bill of Sale and bailment in whioh the horses were described as being branded 8.0. because ho understood that they would be bo branded. W, Gi Aopinall, solicitor, gave evidence as to the drawing up of the Bill of Sale and to the arrangements about branding, and corroborated the ovidenoe of previous witnesses on the subj sot. Geo. Bolton, stated that in November 1885 he was clerk to W. Ackroyd, butoher,Temuka. The latter took out a judgment summons against H. Eagle, who stated in Oourt that his horses had been seijwd and sold and he had no means of paying his debts. Mr White addressod the Oourt at some

length on the evidence and claimed that the itatementof the plaintiff «u entirely uncorroborated while that of the defendant was sustained in all the point*. His witneiaei furthermore ware entirely disinterested. Mr Hay replied and reviewed the evidence from the beginning. He submitted that ,there was a degree of looseness about the evidence of the defendant's witnesses while plaintiff's evidenou was very minute* He regretted that he could not produce Thomas Hennessy, who wai a material witness. Search had been made for him but without avail. Hit Worship eaid the evidence of William Eagle had jput » new complexion on the matter, while Mr Aapinall'a evidence wai very clear ai to the arrangements for branding. Judgment would be for the defendant. On the application of M( Hay, Hii Worship agreed to nonsuit the plaintiff, ! The Court then rose.