COURTS.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 226, 29 June 1872, Page 3

COURTS.

POLICE uOURT. — Yesterday. [Before W. Fraser, Esq., R.M.] DRUNKENNESS AND INDECENT LANGUAGE. Mary Robinson was charged with being diunk, and also with making use of obsuone language in Brown-street, the previous evening. ■ She pleaded guilty. The R.M. said this was the third time Mi'S Robinson had been here within the last month, and must go to gaol for seven Hays. For the indecent language she would have to undergo a further sentence of seven days. o RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT— Yesterday. (Before W. FRASER, Esq., R.M.) M. MACDONNELL V. lIONISS AND YOUNG. This was an action to recover the sum of £2O damages for alleged misrepresentation as to the sale and transfer of cert ain shares in the Emily claim, and stood over for judgment from the previous Court day. The R.M. gave judgment for plaintiff for £l7 14s Gd—costs, £9 6s. Mr Tyler asked the Court to give defendants time to meet the judgment. The R M. consented to the matter standing over for a week. The judgment was as follows : “The circumstances out of which this case arises are as follow —The plaintiff being indebted to a Mr Byers for board and lodging, the defendants who aie debt collectors, have this debt placed iu their hands for collection. The plaintiff having no money as the next thing offers some Coromandel stock for the sans faction of the debt. This offer of the plaint'ff being made ihrough In’s agent, Mr Brame, at Air idand. is accepted by Mr Young, one of the defendants. Mr Young bring uncertain as to the duration of his stay in Auckland, appointed a Mr Jones to receive the p'a’ntiff’s stock at the hands of Mr Brame. This Mr Jones subsequently does. On the faith of this transaction the plaintiff subsequently defended an action at the suit of Byers to recover the dent, when it transpired that Iloniss and Young in exchanging Mr Byer’s debt for Coromandel stock had exceeded the authority given to them by Mr Byers, who obtained judgment with costs. On these facts it would appear to be clear that defendants had pretended to an authority from Byers which they did not possess —that they had thereby misled thep’aintiff into parting with lrs stock, aud defending Byer’s action, and for so doing thev must pay the penalty in this action, and upon all this I could have no shadow of a doubt but for the statement in Mr Brame’s evidence that on the airangement between Mr Young and himself lie put this question—“ Have you Mrs Byer’s authority to make this bargain ?” and Mr Young replied “Yes, I have,” or words to that effect. Upon this evidence the counsel for the defendant raised the argument that in as much as wo are charged with having represented that we had Mr Byer’s authority no f. rl so representation had been proved, and the plaintiff must fail. This issue so ingeniously put required some consideration to answer. But to answer it we have only to look at the facts of the quesfiou and answer. At that time the bargain for the exchange of debt for stock had been actually concluded between Mr B.ame, acting for the debtor, and Mr Young, act'rig for the creditor, and it was an afterthought of caution that led Mr Brame to the query

“have you Mr Byer’s authority?” He, as he says, supposing the creditor to be a woman. Mr Young had pretended to the authority of his principal when he did not hold that authority, and he certainly had done so. it would be no excuse that he confirmed the plaintiff agent in aneirorastothe sex of the defendant's piiucipal. Had it appeared that Mr Young only had pretended to have possessed the authority of Mr Byers at second hand through Mrs Byers then the expiession relied on might have been of avail to the defendants, but it was not so, and judgment must go to the plaintiff for £l7 14s 6d damages, and £9 7s costs I may add that 1 think that the plaintiff’s declaration would have been framed in closer consonance with the evidence, as it transpired that if the word “ fraudulently” had been leit out, for notwithstanding my judgment is against the defendants, I fail to see a suspicion of anything intentionally fraudulent in this action, the explanation being suggested by the evidence in the case o‘: Byeis v. McDonnell that Mr Young bad. between Mr and Mrs Byers, become somewnat confused as to bis authority in the matter. O. M. CllEAflll V. MEREMANA KONUI. This was an action to recover £2G 10s Gd for money lent. When the case was called on, the learned counsel engaged—Mr Macdonald an i Mr Tyler—agreed that it should be struck out. UNDEFENDED CASES. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS. J. Ralston v. T. Hall, £7 4s sd, for goods ; Theresa Knox v. Catherine McGregor, 15s, wages ; F. A. Pulleine v. E. Leyland, £ll 17s, on a dishonoured cheque ; E. Lambert v. J. M. Macdonald, £3 8s 9d, rates ; G. Vidall v. T. W. Jones, £l, cash lent; Kennedy and Tout v. W. Lomas, £ll6s lOd, goods ;J. Lemon v. E. Leyland, £2 10s, cartage ; J. Howell v. Selwyn Vidal, £l2 Gs Gd, goods; 0. A. H'ayson v. J. G. Joyce, £1 Is Id, board and lodging. ADJOURNED FOR A WEEK. M. J. Pcrston v. Horefene Taipara, £ll 5s 2d,rates. J. MAHER V. J. BUTCHER. This was an action to recover £4 damages, being the value of a dog belonging i to plaintiff, which was shot by defendant. The plaintiff stated that he and his dog went into the bush near Tararu, and the dog went after a little pig, but did not do any damage. The defendant came up and shot the dog in witness’s presence, and threatened to put a bullet through his head, which threat, however, he did not carry out. The dog was a very good one—well worth £4. The occurrence took place on the lGtli inst. John Butcher, the defendant, stated that on the day in question he heard pigs and dogs squealling, and went with his gun to see what was the matter, and found plaintiff with one pig under his arm 1 and two dogs hunting the oiheis. One of the dogs was a gieat fe ocious beast and attacked witness,who shot him as plaintiff could not call him off. The dog was a mastiff, and usually kept on the chain, out when loo'e wou'd bite and tearevevytn ng ; j picc-rs it cj.iM get hold of. John L’oyd, assistant bailiff at the R.M. Court, staled that he served the summons on defendant, aud saw the carcase of the dog. It was that of a mastiff. From the position pointed out by defendant at the time the dog must have been close to him when shot. The dog was not such a one as witness would like to be attacked by.

John Townsend, butcher, stated that Maher had admitted to him that he had the pig under his arm at the time Butcher came up. The R.M. said he was doubtful whether plaintiff could recover any damages, but be would reserve judgment in the case for a week. J. C. AKERS V. F. MCCORMICK. This was a claim for £2 for horse hire. Mr Dodd for plaintiff, Mr Tyler for defendant. The defendant said ho had the use of a horse of Mr Aker’s for a day or two, but did not consider he was entitled to pay. Mr Akers had had the use of his horses. The Court ""ive judgment for defend-ant-costs £2 Is.