RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2621, 15 February 1894, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka—Tuesday, February 13th.

[Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M.] DOO REGISTRATION.

Mrs Roddick was charged with having an unregistered dog in her possession of a greater age than 6 months. —Defendant pleaded "Not guilty," and produced a certificate of registration for the dog issued in another district. —His Worship expressed regret that informant had not ascertained that the dog was registered before giving defendant the trouble to come to Court.—Mr Pilbrow, the informant, stated that he expected people owning dogs registered in other districts to get their licenses endorsed.—Case dismissed. J. Mcßratney, charged with having one terrier unregistered, was fined 5s and costs. Joseph Stark was also charged with having an unregistered dog in his possession, and pleaded that he had registered it on February 2nd (the information was laid on February Ist), and further that he was often away several weeks at a time.—Fined 5s and costs. E. Williams, charged with a similar offence, did not appear, and was fined 5s and costs. Isaac Morris was charged with having on the 22nd January an unregistered dog iu his possession, and pleaded " Not guilty." Edward Pilbrow, registrar of dogs, gave evidence as to seeing the dog on defendant's premises on January 22nd, and to having spoken to defendant's wife about it.—Defendant denied ever having a brown terrier in his possession.—lnformant stated that the same dog was registeredjin previous years as a black and tan dog. He had to accept people's description. Last saw tho dog alive on the 29th January, and laid the information on the Ist February. stated that the dog was shot on Tuesday, January 23rd. His son shot it. The dog was ten years old, and getting offensive.—Rowland Morris gave evidence as to shooting the dog on January 23rd in the presence of his brother. He slung it into a gorse bush.—Ernest Morris gave corroborative evidence.—Mr Pilbrow reiterated that he had seen the dog on the 29th.—Case dismissed. BREACH OF LICENSING ACT. Michael Mulhern was charged that on. 3rd February, being the holder of a license under the Licensing Act, 1881, and Amendments,[he|did permit a game of billiards to be played after the hour of eleven o'clock on day in question.. Mr J. W. White appeared for defendant, and said that without denying that a game of bagatelle was played on the night in question, yet he did not wish to plead guilty. He wished the evidence heard, as it was a case more for caution than conviction.

Thomas Bourke, constable in eharge at Temuka, said that at half-past eleven o'clock on Saturday, February 3rd, he heard the bagatelle balls rattling, and went into the house. Found two young men playing, aud other two looking on or marking; one was a boarder. Went into the bar and saw Mulhern, and asked him if he did not think it time +o stop bagatelle playing. He said "No." It was not yet twelve o'clock. Reminded him his was only an eleven o'clock license. Left, and heard the balls rattling again. When he returned the lights were out.

By Mr White: Mr Mulhern conducted his house fairly. Went into the house by the private entrance. Did not meet Mr Mulhearn in the passage. He saw him in the bar with a female, whom he took to be his daughter. Saw no drinking, and the house was quiet, except for the click of the billiard balls. The men playing were quite respectable men. Mr Mulhern seemed to be raider the impression that he could allow the bagatelle table to be used up till twelve o'clock. The town clock struck half-past eleven just when he went in. Michael Carr gave evidence that he was in the Royal Hotel on Saturday night playing a game of bagatelle. They played 150 to 200 up. He was not a lodger. They played for drinks. It wae between ten minutes and a-quarter past eleven. Would swear the game was not started after eleven o'clock. They played 150 up. The game took about seven minutes to finish after the constable left.

By Mr White j Mr Mulhern refused to serve them with drinks. The house was quite quiet. Mr Mulhern did not seem surprised when the constable spoke to him. Had played in other houses, and it was a oommon practice to finish games started before eleven o'clock.

James Dyson remembered being <tt the Royal Hotel and seeing the constable. Was marking a same of bagatelle for the last witness and another player. It waa from a quarter to • twenty minutes past eleven. The game was started before tha house closed Oarr's playing depended on luck, and it might take him some timet to finish the game. By Mr White: McKenzie was there at the time with Carr. There •was no drinking going on. Only took " soft tack" himself at any time. Was a boarder for some time. M. Mulheru; Had been a licensed victualler in South Canterbury some seven years, and previously in the Old Country. Had never been before a Court before. On the night in question. Constable Bourke cuine in and told him to stop the bagatelle playing. Told hink they were only just finishing. Had a. copy of the Act, but although he had perused it carefully never noticed the clause referred to. H?.d no intention of defying the law, aud only asked to have it brought before the Resident Magistrate instead of the Justices.

By the constablo : Waa not in. a temper when spoken to. Remembered the Monday morning, and asked the constable if ho was in the same mind, and, receiving a reply in the affirmative, said " Well, go on." By Mr White : Shut up the house at eleven and served no drinks. Mr White urged that the often ce was committed in ignorance, and scarcely one, from the evidence, that called for a penalty. The only reason he considered from a careful reading of the Act why the playing of billiards and bagatelle waa prohibited, was lest the noiso should disturb other people and lead to annoyance

His Worship said he was sorry for Mr Mulliorn, who appeared to have a good record, but there had been a clear infraction of t.hn law, and he was bound lo outer a conviction. Ho would make the penalty as light as possible in consideration of tho way in which the house was conducted and fine him 20s and costs. O;,o ci.'ctcd to tako costs, the other waa " not particular." i.'IVJL CASES. James Blylh v. John Woodley.—Claim £i. 7s Gd. Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs. Same v. Geo. Broderick.—CJa'in £1 l!)s JUd. Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs. U. Brosnahau v. W. Johnson.

Mr Smithsou appeared for defeudaut aud, stated that he hud tiled yesterday au.4

returned his conduct money. Case Btruck out.

Official Assignee v. E. Brown. Mr White for plaintiff and Mr Salmon d for defendant. The statement of claim showed that the Official Assignee claimed from defendant the return of certain goods or their value, £4 9s 6d. The assignee claimed under Section 79 of the Bankruptcy Act, and it would be shown that undue preference had been shown to a creditor.

Alexander Montgomery, Deputy Official Assignee in bankruptcy of the property of Sydney William Powlesland, said he filed on the 29th December last, and produced his official three-day list. It showed liabilities of £280125. The assets realised £35 0a 7d. The present action was brought on a resolution of creditors. All assets had been realised except a picture considered valueless and a few book debts.

'Sydney William Powlesland :* Was carrying on business in Temuka, and tiled on December 29th. Was carrying on business as an upholsterer and cabinetmaker. Was indebted to Mr E. Brown for £4 9s sd. Had received an account monthly, with a request to pay as a footnote. When he filed, handed his accounts and papers to the Official Assignee. Two days before he filed Mr Brown called and asked for payment. Told him he had not the money, and asked for time as he was very much pressed. He said he could not wait any longer as it had been owing so long. Told him he could not possibly let him have it, and he said he must take it out in goods. Demurred to this, and told him he was in difficulties. Mr Brown Baid " That means if they were to press you would not be able to pay them all." Said "Yes." Mr Brown said, *Very well, I must have goods to the amount of my account." Told him he thought it would not be fair to other creditors, but Mr Brown talked him over and he let him have the goods. When he first started in business had allowed Mr Brown to take out a small account in goods. Did not at the time Bee any prospect of pulling through. Felt that he would have to file sooner or later, as his other creditors were pressing. Felt he was 'in an insolvent position with no hope of pulling through. Two days after this transaction filed. Was never threatened with legal proceedings by Mr Brown. The Assignee instructed witness to deliver a letter to Mr Brown, requesting that the goods be given up. By Mr Salmond : Some time before bankruptcy received accounts with a footnote stating that Mr Brown was pushed for money and that the account must be paid. Did not know what k had ü become of these Accounts. Mr Brown came two days before he filed and insisted on getting goods or settlement. Was overpersuaded to do it against his will. Did not wish particularly to favor Mr Brown more than the other creditors. Would not have paid Mr Brown unless he had over-persuaded him. The next morning received a letter from the landlord demanding rent. The great rea3on for filing was this letter and the fear that he might be imposed upon by other creditors. Was advised by a friend to file, and did so the same day. When Mr Brown was in the shop told him it was his intention to make up a suite of furniture, the frames of which were iu the shop, if he could keep on without filing. On the 27th remembered seeing Mr Henry Miles, who asked him if he could meet a bill coming due on January 11th. Told him he could not, but offered to give him an order on Mr Velvin for £4 6s. Did not remember saying that he would keep on, but might have said that he would try to keep on, as trade might look up. Might have said he would try to keep on until Easter.

Mr Salmond said that there seemed no reason to call evidence, as there was no conflict of facts. He briefly recapitulated the evidence and asked for a nonsuit, but subsequently called the defendant, Elijah Brown, who said he had made irequent applications for money from Powlesland. On the 27th was trying to collect money. Had heard nothing to make him suspect Powlesland's circumstances, but called as he was passiug. Powlesland said he could not settle then, but would as soon as he could. Reminded him that it was a long time owing, and said he expected it then. Thought then that as he wanted some chairs himself he would take some. Would have taken a bedstead or two. Agreed upon a price, and Powlesland seemed glad. Was not told Powlesland was goiug to file. The goods were delivered the sime night, and Powlesland brought him a receipt on the following day. He did nob say anything then about filing. The firßt he (witness) ever heard about his filing was after he had filed.

By Mr White: Gave Mr Powlesland the receipt produced on the' 28th. Mr Powlesland brought him the receipt produced on the 28th. It was dated on the 2£th, but altered, as a mistake had beeu made. Wanted both chairs and bedsteads. Knew Powlesland was not doing much business, but did not know he was going to file. Thought he had better look after his money, as by the appearance of Powlesland'B shop witness thought he was going behind. Had often taken goods in payment of accounts as an obligement. Powlesland did not demur to his having goods, but he preferred he should buy other goods.

Henry Martyn Miles, draper, Temuka : Bankrupt was owing him money (about £l2 on a promissory note, due on the sth January. Saw Powlesland on the 27th December and remiuded him that it was falling due. Bankrupt told him he could not meet the whole, and witness asked him to do the best ho could. Bankrupt gave as a reason that business was dull, but that ho hoped that things would be better in another six months. If not, he should give up. Mr Salmond addressed the Court, and quoted authorities showing that the clauses with regard to fraudulent preference were meant to apply more to the voluntary act of a debtor, and not to payment made under pressure. In the one case the debtor voluntarily handed over his property to a favored creditor, in the other a diligent creditor simply received his reward, and no fraudulent preference was established. Ho quoted a case which occurred in Christ church m 1885, and reported in N.Z. Law Reports, where evidence was given of continued pressuro by a creditor. A number of Jfiuglish cases w.3re also quoted. Ho claimed that unless there was ;i covert understanding that Brown was to ho paid before Powlesland filed there was no fraudulent preference.

Mr White addressed the Court at some length, quoting numerous cases to controvert Mr Salmond's argument. Mr Salmond replied, and claimed that the decisions quoted by lm learned friend were not applicable, as they were cases decided upon a diii'erait law. His Worship took time to consider. Inekkiacv. TTA young man, charged on remand with he'.plfKS drunkenness, and who had been uudor medical treatnieut, was agaiu brought up.

Constable Bourke stated that accused had been examined by Dr Hayes, who considered him yet far from well, but that he could be safely released under some supervision. He understood an old employer, Mr Cant, would take charge of him. Mr Cant, who was in court, expressed his willingness to look after accused, and on that understanding he was discharged. The court then rose.