RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3867, 21 May 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

YBSTEEDAY. (Before H.Kenriok, Esq., R.M.) The Cup Case. MCKEE V. DOUGIAB. The following is the conclusion of the evidence given yesterday in the " Cup oase:' f —

J. A. Miller, sworn, deposed I was counselled by plaintiff in April last with reference to the Andrew Cup. I tendered him certain advice. I recollect writing a letter of demand to Mr Douglas. Mr Douglas promised to lay the matter before the company. He asked me to ask McKee what he would take to settle the matter, and'hc would also lay that before the company. By Mr Dodd—Mr Douglas looked on it as a company matter. James McKee, the plaintiff, gave his version of the case, which was substantially the same as that already adduced in evidence. He, however, denied being present on three occasions when the firing for tbe substitute cups was decided on.

Messrs Simpson and Wood, members of the Company, pave evidence concerning the competition Wood was of opinion that McKee won the Cup. He never heard anj objection made to McKee shooting with a small rifle. He understood McKee fired with a medium rifle of Government pattern. If he was in McKee's position, he would consider himself the winner. Never heard McKee waive his right to the Cup. He understood that the fourth match was to complete the competition for the big cup. By Mr Dodd—He did not remember any mention of the small cups on parade. . This concluded the case for the plaintiff. James McKee, recalled, deposed—ln the first three matches I fired with the rifle issued to me from the Company, but in the fourth I fired with another. I never personally asked for the cup of Capt. Douglas. I know Sergt. Craig. I met him coming from the range after the fourth match. I did not tell him I had won one of the cups. ■ ■ By Mr Brassey—l fired with a proper rifle. No objection was made about my rifle, indeed I never heard of it till to day

K. T. Douglas deposed—l produce a copy of the New Zealand Government Prize Firing Regulations. The second rule says " All competitors must fire with the weapons on issue to them." Dr Andrew's conditions made the firing sub ject to.the Government rules. I had no power to alter the condition*, neither did I do so.

By Mr Brassey—l don't recollect any mention of Government regulations on parade. I don't know of any other medium rifles being used at the fourth match. I know of no company rules regarding what rifles may be used in shooting competitions. The cup is at my place now. The penalty for breaking the firing rules is disqualification. Tbos. Xitching, Lieut. T.R.R., gave evidence to effect that McKee was present on three occasions when the substitute cups were spoken of. He never raised any objection in witness' hearing. He did not know that a man named Gibbs shot with a short rifle. He produced a roil showing that McKee was present. John Grant, Lieutenant and Drill Instructor, deposed that he was present when Dt Andrews made the regulations for the competition for the Cup Witness suggested that they should be as brief as possible, and that the Government prize firing rules be introduced. A resolution had been passed by the Rifle Bangers that company prizes might be fired for with any rifles on issue to the oompany. W. H. Craig, sworn, gave evidence to the effect that after the fourth match McKee told him that he had won one of the cups. B. Long, who had taken part in the competition, said that he noticed McKee firing with a different rifle, but no objection was made at the time. It was generally understood that they were firing for the two cups. On one occasion Mr Douglas told him Dr And rows thought he had made a mistake in the regulations with reference to the standing firing at the short ranges.

E. Gibbs, Sergeant T.R.R., also gave evidence, which concluded the ease for the defence.

Mr Dodd addressed tlie Court laying particular stress on McKee having broken the regulations by firing with a rifle other than his own.

Mr Brassey said the defence was ope of the most disgraceful ever set up in a volunteer prize oaae, and be thought all right minded persons would agree with him in that. A piece of jealousy ran through the corps, and that was the reason why they endeavored tp prevent McKee from getting a cup which he had honorably won. He thought it preposterous for defendant to endeavor to show that McKee had consented to fire for two paltry cups, worth pot more than a couple of pounds each, which had the appearance of ha?ing been used, probably drunk out of by Dr Andrewg or even by Captain Douglas. He thought the Court, after carefully weighing the evidence, could not do otherwise than give judgment for the amount claimed, with costs. His Worship oaid there was one portion of Mr Brassey s speech to which he must refer, riz., the unjustifiable manner in which he spoke of the defence, and, referring to the law of detinue, said that Mr Douglas' action in holding the cup was certainly right, and that he (Mr Douglas) would hare been foolish indeed if under the circumstances he had given it up without the order of a proper tribunal, ai he would undoubtedly have been liable if he had done so. He held th«t Mo£ee undoubtedly knew of the substitution of prizes, and lie must therefore nonsuit the. plaintiff. With regard to the question of costs, he thought that as it was a company matter they should

each bear their own costs, and would decide accordingly. In reply to Mr Brassey His Worship ruled that McKee had not disqualified himself, and was consequently entitled to the small cup.

BENNETT V. WILLS

Claim, £2, value of timber taken from plaintiff's selection at Tapu by defendant, who was a carter in the employ of Mr R. M- Hawkes. A-fter hearing the eridence His Worship nonsuited plaintiff. adjourned.