RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 1, 7 October 1871, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT.

CIVIL JURISDICTION, Yesterday. (Before W. Frazer, R.M.) L. Severs v. M. Bust.— This was an action in trover (previously before the Court) to recover L 5, the value of a dog. Harry Sallars was called to prove the a-e of the dog, and said he had not yet made an examination of the animal, and the case was accoidingly put back to enable him to do so. The witness said he had some experience of dogs, and could tell the age of one if its teeth were not filed down or cankered. —At a subsequent period of the day the case was again called on, when Mr. SaJlais stated that he had examined the do". It was f«om 20 to 23 months’ old. Its teeth wei c not filed or cankered. Witness was considered one of the best judges of dogs in London Liverpool, and elsewhere.—By Mr. Miller: It would not make any difference as to the dog being fed on bones or otherwise. —The Resident Magistrate said there was a great doubt amongst the authorities as to telling a dog’s age by its teeth. It was held by many veteiinary surgeons that up to a certain time a dog’s age could be so told. The evidence of Mr. Sallars was corroborative of that previously offered by plaintiff.—Judgment for plaintiff for L 5, to be reduced to one shilling on delivery of the dog to plaintiff within seven days. .—At the conclusion of the case ten shillings were tendered to Mr. Sallars for his expenses, upon which Mr. Sallars remarked, “That’s small for two days’ attendance o? a professional.” (Laughter.) —The Resident Magistrate said he was Sony he could not allow more, but hoped Mr. Sallars would he satisfied. —Upon this Mr. Sallars took the 10s., and made a most poiite how to the Court. J. W. Rountree v. L. Rich. —Mv. Miller for plaintiff ; no appearance of defendant.—This was an action to recover the amount of L 8 13s. on a. promissory note for goods sold and delivered. Judgment for plaintiff. A. Lacells v. Robert Dunn.—Claim for L 5 14s. on a promissory note. —On the application of Mr. Miller, the case was adjourned until next Coui.t day. J. Buchanan v. J. Heath. —This was an action by J. Buchanan as Trustee in die in the estate of Oughton and Myers against J. Heath for L2 ss. 7d. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff.

Soutit Lead C.M.C. v. J. C. Reid.— Claim for LI 11s. for calls. No appearance of defendant. —The lega 1 manager of the company having proved the debt, judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed. Sw'ndells v. Ribband, —This was a claimfor L 6 2s, on a judgment summons for groceries, bread, &c. Mr. Macdouakl for plaint iff; defendant in peison—Defendan t was examined as to his means and ability to pay, and said he had no money now, but at the time he contracted, the debt he had mote money than brains. This debt was incurred for drtnks, but he would pay 10s. a week. He was no loafer. He had a wife and family in Victoria, and kept them the-.e and himse'f here. He would be no mao ; f he did not. He was a mechanic, aad not oLen out of employment. If defendant would admit tin’s debt was for drinks, it would be paid, but not oihe»* wise. Had lather go to gaol firsi. Was willing to pay what the Court would order.—The Resident Magistrate sddfrotn the bi'l of particulars tie items could hardly be called “d inks.” Ho would make an o'.rier for payment of 10s. per week, or io default a mouths’imprisonment.— De"endant: I never was in “ chokey” yet, and do’ut drink I’ll go there this time. M. Costeghon v. J. P. Psrcy. —This was an aciion to recover the sum of L2O on an alleged breach ©f coni?act for the purchase of three shaics in the Otago G.M.C. On the application of Mr Macdonald. for plaintiff, the case was adjourned to the 13th instant on payment of costs of the day. M. Henei.ly and others v. J. G. Heath and others. —This was an action for Ll 9 10s Od for non-completion of a contract for the sale and delivery of fifty shares in the Pacific G.M.C., Coromandel. Mr Tyler for plaintiff; Mr Lascekes for defendant. M. Hencl'y deposed that the shares in question were puichased bv him and his partners. Saw the defendant last month and asked him if he had any shares in the Pacific claim, Coiomandel, for sale. He asked witness to come to the office, and then said lie had some shares for sale, but would have to telegraph to Auckland: This witness refused, but afterwards be met defendant in the street, when the latter said he would sell fifty shares at three shillings, and would himself guarantee the transfer. Gave a cheque for L2 deposit and took a receipt (produced). The balance was to b« paid on receipt of transfers. Communicated with Mr Simpson and his partners in Auckland abort the matter. It was in consequence of what Mr Simpson had said that witness was induced to purchaso the siha.es. Defendant agiced io deliver ilia shares to Mr Simpson in Auckland, but subsequently said on his return from that place that lie could not deliver them. Witness told him he would have to sue him. Defendant said he could not help it. Witness tendered him the balance of the purchase money and then took proceedings. _n consequence of the noncompletion of the contract wiiness,through his partner, Mr Simpson, subsequently purchased oliov shaves in the same company. By Mr Lacelles : I do not remember Mr Heath asking me what the market price of these shares was.—Mr Simpson deposed that at the time he received the telegram from Mr Hennelly, Pacific shares were selling at fiom 2s to 3s. They afterwards rose to 12s 6d. Witness told Mr Heath that ho (plaintiff) would have to buy other shares, and did so at 10s per share.—By Mr Lacelles: I bought 50 shares frqin a person named Smith for 10s, and sold them again to Mr Saunders at the same price. These shares rose the same day from 2s Gd to 12s Gd. Mr Heath said he was unable to deliver the shares as ho had not got them, lie did say something about not being aware of the market price the previous day. Nothing was said of the price having been misrepresented to defendant by plaintiff.—Mr Lasccllcs sakl this case was similar to one recently ti.ed in me Supreme Court (Ferguson v. MacCormick), the defence being that ihero was a fraudulent m:srepresentation on the part of plaintiff as to the pi ice of these shares. Mr Heath unfortunately was 100 ill to give his attendance to-day—Mr T. W. Jones, sharebroker, Grali amstown, deposed that fie wr,s present at ihe conversation which took place at Mr Heath’s office about these shares. Mr Hennelly, in reply to the latter, said the shares we e not rising in price, that he was aware of and that 3s was the price. Mr Heath then said “ You shall have 50 at 35.” The bargain was then struck Mr Heath said he had 200 for sale.—By Mr Tyler : I was not in partnership with Mr Heath. I was occupying part of his office as a Law Stationer. I started sharebroking about 3 weeks ago. tfarnes Slator deposed to boing present

at the alleged conversation. Mr. Henelly distinctly said the market was not rising, and that the price was 3s. They were worth 10s. at this lime.—Mr. Tyler proposed* to call evidence to rebut the evidence called by defendants, which was objected to by Mr. Lascelles, but allowed by the Court.—Mr. Hennelly was then re-called, and said he got an order at ss. and bought at 3s. Met Mr. Heath in the street both before and after Ihe conversation. The bargain was completed in the office, not in the street.—Wiiness was cross-examined as to the conversation with Mr. Slator and Mr. Heath.—The learned counsel having addressed the Court for their respective clients, the Resident Magistrate said he would re- 15 serve judgment. There were several other cases on tho list, but they were either settled out of Court, or struck out for non-appearance of the parties concerned.

POLICE COURT.— Yesterday. (Before W. Frazer, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness and Assaut.t. John Marshall was charged with being drunk making use of obscene language, and assaulting Alexander Barnett, in the Warwick Aims, Pohen-strect, on the evening of the sth inst.—Mr. Dodd appealed for the prosecution; the accused was undefended.—W. Barnett stated that the prisoner came into the diniog-ioom of the hotel very diunk, and commenced to abuse the people there, calling them “ paper collar b——and making use of other abusive epithets. He sat on one of tables, and challenged all piesent to fight. Witness took notice, and prisoner then, without any provocation, stiuck him on the face with his fist.—The Resident Magistrate sentenced the accused to seven days’ inipiisonment, without the option of paying a fine for the assault, and fined him 20s. for the other offence, observing that this appealed to be a most unjiis.ifiable and unpiovoked assault. The prisoner, who said he was drunk, and did not know what occuried, was then removed in custody.

Ddstroting Private Property. —Thos. Keelan was chaiged wiih destroying propel ty of the value of 225. Gd., belonging to D. Quadrc. —The prosecutor deposed that the accused came to his shop the previous day. Ho was drunk and quairelsoine, and taking up a stone, threw it atwhness, and smashed a lamp and two panes of glass. Ho wanted to fight witness, who, however, declined the offer. Tho accused said he had been woiking a share in a claim for the piosecutor. lie did not lemember what occuried as he was unwell at the iitne.— The Resident Magistiate said being dremkwas an agg.aval : on instead of a paUiaticn of the offence. The accused must pay a penrlty of 40s. in addition to the amount of damage, or in default must g© to gaol for seven days.—The accused asked for time, and enquired if he went to gaol woiirt

his share bo protected during his imprisonment.— The Resident Magistrate said certainly nor.—The accused was then removed.

Neglected Child. —George Rochfort, a lad of about nine yeais of age, was biought up as a neglected child, at the instance of his father, who stated that he could not eontiol the boy, and had not flic means to send him to a day school.—The Resident Magistrate to the father (a man of color). Do you mean tc say a man bkc you cannot couiiol a hoy nine yeais old? I suppose you want the Government to relieve you of the charge. You had better take the boy home, and take better care of him or the police will most likely he instructed to Jay an information against you. —With this sensible advice the father apparently complied, and left in company wnh the hopeful youili his son. Obtaining Money on False Pretences.!—Timothy Donovan was charged wit'.! obtaining on false pretences

the sum of L 5 from Arthue Bruce, Grahamstown.—Mr Bullen conducted the prosecution.—Mr Macdonald appeared for the piisoner.—Mr Bruce stated that he keeps a shop at Grahamstown, and hastwo Berdans on the premises. Yeste? day the prisoner came to his shop nad asked witness to weigh some amalgam for him. Witness did so, and found the weight to be 19 ozs. and 2 dwts. The prisoner then asked witness to purchase it, and after some bargaining as to price, witness consented to purchase it for L 5, wnich he considered the value of it. The prisoner said it came from the Waiovalii. Witness gave him the cheque produced on the Union Bank for the above amount. Prisoner represented it as gold amalgam. On being retorted it produced about G ozs. of base metal. Witness then went to the Union Bank and slopped the cheque. Prisoner came aflerwaids to witness’s shop, and asked if the amonut of the cheque was not going to be paid. Witness said •' the best thing you can do is to go to the party who cashed it, and sctilo with him." Prisoner then asked where the amalgam was retorted. Witness replied that he retorted it himself. Prisoner afterwards said lie would not press the matter of payment as it would cost a lot of money for lawyers. He had been to the detectives to compel witness to pay the amount. A demand 7

had been made for payment. The manager of the Bank told witness lie was not

liable to pay the amount, and that legal advice had been taken on the subject.— By Mr Macdonald : Then so far as you’re concerned, you’re satisfied, I suppose. You are six ounces to the good, of some sort of stuff, at any rate. (Laughter).— Witness : Six ounces of zinc are not of

much value to me. (Laughter).—Edward Murphy deposed to the prisoner’? sou obtaining from him a L 5 note for the cheque now produced. The father camo in just aftsrwards, hut did not mal-;e any reina k. The boy said his father got the cheque from Mr Bruce. On the cheque being presented at the Bank it was returned with an intimation that payment had been stopped. Witness had some eonveisation with the prisoner subsequent I }' about this matter. The prisoner said he would make Mr Bruce pay the amount of th» cheque. Mr Bruce has not paid the amount. Prisoner offered witness a pawn ticket for a watch and some other things, and said witness could take that in payment or go without.—John Masters, assayer, &c\, deposed that he received the metal now produced from a detective constab’c yesterday for assay, to see how much gold it contained. There is not eighteen penny-, worth of gold iq it. Them aye about six ounces ahogethev. It is principally zinc. Quicks.lver from the batteries may be »l>tained by sluicing in the creeks. Nineteen ounces of amalgam would certain I}' 1 }' give more gold than is contained in die metal now p'oducpd. Zinc will readily amalgamate wiJi quicksiiver.—Detective Murphy deposed to accompanying prisoner, at his own request, to Messrs Murphy's on .’Wednesday .ast. Witness made inqu'rics t’.iere as to the payment of a cnequc, and then went to Mr Bruce’s. Mr Bruce said he had paid tho cheque for some amalgam which he retorted, and finding from the result that he had been swindled he had stopped «.he payment of

the cheque. Mr Bruce produced the metal now befoio the Court and said that was the result of the retorting.—Mr Macdonald : Then it was by getting into your bad company the prisoner got himself into custody. (Laughter). Mr Macdonald submitted that no case of false pretence had been established, and that if the matter came before the Court at all it should be by civil action. —His Worship said the Court had no Sympathy with people who bought amalgam without making proper inquiries. He was of opinion that the case had not been made out, and it would therefore he dismissed. The case was dismissed accordingly.