COURTS.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 194, 23 May 1872, Page 3

COURTS.

POL IC E CO U RT. —Y est ick day. Before W. FRASER, Esq., R. 3.1. OBSTRUCTING TIIE FOOTPATH.— John Roiltltree was charged with obstructing the footpath in Ow<ui-streci, Grabamstown, on the lGtli instant, by having a platfonn erected on ihe same, pleaded guilty, and was fined Is and costs. BREACHES OF BAKERS AND MILLERS ACL’. No Balances. John Robinson, was charged with neglecting to have on or near ihe counter in ais shop, a beam and scales with proper weights or siidien-nt balance, at Grnhnmstown, on the 17lh instant. Defendant pleaded guilty, through ignorance.—Mr Billion said there were: a liumber of these prosecutions, in consequence of nnmeions complaints having been made oi light weight bread. Defendant might he ignorant of the pro-

visions of ihe Act, hut it was his duty to have made himself acquainted with it. These cases would now he made public through the press, and the linkers would have no further excuse.— Ilis Worship said that it was the business of defendant and otic rs to acquaint themselves with the provisions of the Act, and referred to several other provisions of the Act, under which the prosecutions had been instituted, some of which, lie reminded them, weie of a very stringent, nature, as much so ns tlu: Customs Act. If p, •oseeutions came before him under those clauses, he would have no d:scretiouai'v powers. He would advise the defendant and others to piocure copies of the Millers and Balcms Act, and make themselves thoroughly acquainted with iis provisions. They had formerly Provincial Acts as well as New Zealand Acts, and, whatever might have hern said of the former, he believed that they had been as well suited to circumstances as the Millers and Bakers Act, which had superseded them. However the plea of ignorance might he entertained on the present occasion. hak> rs and the public should in future know the law on the matter, and especially the latter should know' that they had a remedy against short-weight bread. For the offence of not having scales on the counter, lie would fine defendant Is and costs. His Worship, addressing the whole of defendants, informed them o f various provisions of the Act, and of the penalties to which they were subjected by breaches of the same. ITo reminded them that thev were under an obligation to the Rub-Inspector of Police for asking only for mitigated lines in the cases of being without balances on their counters.

Edward Reid was charged with ex- j posing for sain in his shop at Grahams- I town a loaf of wheaten bread weighing less than four pounds, the same not being marked with a Roman letter H.—Defendant, was fined 10s and costs. James Garden, charged with neglecting to have scales and weights, pleaded guilty, and was fined 10s and costs. Annie Doran, charged with exposing for sa’o loaves of bread weighing less than 4-lbs., not being dnlv marked 11, as provided bv the Act, on the 10fli instant, was fim d 10s and costs. Annie Doran, for a like offence, was fined Is and oosts. Robert T. Douglas, charged with exposing for sale loaves weighing loss than 4!hs. at his shop, in Shorthand, on the 17th instant, not b'diig duly marked by the letter IT, pleaded guilty, and was fined 10s and costs. Assault — Thomas Qunitlv was charged with assaulting James Baker, at Waiotahi, on the IGth instant.—Mr Dodd, for defendant, pleaded not gni'ty. The plaintiff deposed that he was on the Belmont claim on the IGth instant. Went into the drive with a lighted candle in his hand, when defendant said what do yon want here. Witness replied that lie was about his own business, when defendant called him a and said he would drive a pick into Ids head, at the same time mgking an attempt to do so. Witness’s candle went, out, and defendant struck him o.i the hip with the pick. Witness left the drive, defendant following and threatening him. Witness said he went some distance to where two men were woikuig, to whom

lie showed the wound in In's hip.—Witness was cross-examined by Mr Dodd.— Two witnesses were cal'cd. who deposed to having been shown a bruise anrl wound on complainant’s hip after he came out of the Belmont drive. The bruise was three inches long and two wide.— Mr Dodd addressed flm Court for the defence.—The defendant was fined 20s and costs, or three days’ imprisonment. Extension of Licence. — Mr Dodd ap-

peared to support, an application from D. McM asters to extend his licence to Ohinemcri on the occasion of the sports. — There was an objection bv the police, on th° ground that it would be an injustice to the holders of publicans’ licences in the. district, and that the applicant was now out of the business, having converted his licensed premises into a butcher’s shop.— The application was refused.

! Music and Dancing. —An application l by Abraham Jacobs for permission to have I music and darning in Ins licensed house, | the Scotia Hotel, on tiie night of the Queen’s Birthday, was refused, on the ground that applicant had obtained a permit for music and dancing about a month ago, and that the result was a free ball, at which there was disorderly conduct. Winding Up. —Air Dodd made application for an order for winding up tiie South Lead Cold Mining Company (Registered). —An order was made to wind up, the name of John Snodgrass being inserted as official liquidator.—Mr Miller made an application tor au order to wind up the Felix Gold Mining Company (Registered), which was granted, the order to be in favour of Edward Thomas Wiidinan.

DISTRICT COUItT. —Y esterday. [Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., District Judge.] IN BANKRUPTCY. IN BE 11. E. MORROW. This was an application for discharge. Mr Tyler appeared for bankrupt, and stated that there was no opposition in this case, which was adjourned from a previous Court day in order to give notice to creditors at Wellington, who, however, had not proved. The bankrupt received his discharge’ J. KENT V. ;J. BRITON. For plaintiff Mr Macdonald. For defendant Mr Tyler. The further hearing of this case, which was an action to recover the sum oi £BS 5s 4d, tor work and labor done in quarrying stone, and was adjourned from Uie previous day, was resumed. Mr Tyler moved for a nonsuit on the ground that Ockleshaw, a partner oi Kent’s, had not been joined in tiie action. It was admitted that when the original contract had been first entered into Ocklesiiaw was not a partner, but became so soon afterwards.

Mr Tyler said there were two causes mixed up together. Part of the work was done by Kent only, and part by Kent and Ocklesmtw, and tiie piaiut could nonow he amended by the joinder ol Uckleshaw. Air Macdonald contended that as the contract was made between Kent and Briton alone the plaintiff ought not to be nonsuited.

Mr Tyler replied that plaintiff was on other contiaels beside tiie original contract. Every time an alteration was made as Lo tiie size of Uie Slone ana the pne , a new contract was entered into during winch alterations and vat unions Uekffslmw was a partner. Tiie plaintiff, In contended,must bo nonsuited or juugmeii. must pass lor defendant.

The Court said the evidence disci os* i a partneisiiip beyond ad donut tielwcei. Kent and Uckleshaw, tiie question waought Uckleshaw to he joined as he wn.not a partner at the time the original contract was entered into. All Macdonald contended that thesi alteration in the original contract din not make a new ccmraot. Mr Tyler contended that the action was wrongly brought in tho name of Kent alone and repeated that plaintiff must hi nonsuited, or judgment given for defendant. The Court was about to nonsuit the plaintiff. Mr Macdonald declined to take a nonsuit. Air Tyler contended that a plaintiff could not he nonsuited if he did not choose to take one. After some further discussion it was agreed to take a nonsuit by direction oi the Court. Plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited. Costs, fill 18s. It was stated that there would be probably au appeal in this case. IN RE DAVID WILLIAMS. Mr Macdonald for bankrupt. Mr Tyler for Mr Buchanan, the trustee, who opposed the discharge. Mr Tyler said he appeared for John Buchanan,' who was trustee, and also a creditor. The trustee had been unable to make a report in consequence of delay on part of the bankrupt, but an accountant had been employed to go over the accounts. He proposed to examine bankrupt as to the nature of the transactions in order to elicit certain facts upon which a report could be framed by the trustee. David Williams deposed : I am an adjudicated bankrupt. I have been carrying on business as a grocer. Commenced business here in April, 1871. Had been in business at Ballarat formerly. Had been in America managing a general store before that. [Mr .V.acdonahl objected to the reception of this evidence. Mr Tyler said it had a hearing on the present case. The examination proceeded.] I did not myself keep hooks at Ballarat. My bookkeeper did. I did not keep tiie hooks of the American establishment. I don’t think I know anything at all about bookkeeping. I can read and write. I dare say I could keep such books as would do for my business litre. I came from Victoria lure, just before commencing business here. Had given up business there two years before. J assigned the estate there for the benefit of the creditors. I brought £-1 or £5 from Victoria here. I commenced business here without any funds. In S’ptember, 1871, I was indebted £552 10s 10d, as well as £!)3 15s unpaid capital on 100 shares in the Virginia G.M.C., and £SG 5s on. 150 shares in the Commercial G..M.C. I have invoices of goods which I paid for between April and September and also of some which I did not pay for. Ik« pt no record in the books of my purchases during that time nor alter it. I made the record filed in Court from th? invoices and the amount I paid for sundry goods. The entries in the cash-book are in my own handwriting. I cannot say what amount was paid during those 5 months. It is not added up. It would tauo me some time. It is a very unusual thing in small transactions to have hooks balanced

The Court: But your’s is not a small transaction. Here yon begin with nothing, and in five mouths you are £.OOO or £GOO in debt by your own showing. I« that nothing V. Mr Macdonald objected to this examination being proceeded with before the production of the report. Mr Tyler replied. It was agreed that the further examination should be adjourned until next Court day, and that in the meantime the trustee should send in a report. The Court then adjourned until the 18th of June.