RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 148, 8 December 1870, Page 6

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., K.M.) Thursday, Dec. 1. Drnry v. A. Taylor. — Interpleader. Mr. Gooday for plaintiff, and Mr. M'Coy for defendant. The case is as follows: — Some months ago Drury and John Taylor (brother of present defendant) were together cutting firewood and rails in Watson's Bush on shares. .After a little disagreement there was a separation. Accounts having been made up, Taylor was indebted to Drury in the sum of £20. Drmy got L 5 at the time, the rest to be paid afterwards. Some short time afterwards Drury sued Taylor for balance at the Court. The defendant stated that by an agreement entered into between him and Drury, he was not entitled to recover. The agreement was to the effect that Drury should take L 5 (above referred to) and wait for the balance until the timber was sold, which had not been clone on account of the badness of the roads. This the plaintiff denied. After hearing the whole case, verdict was given for plaintiff, but fourteen days was given by the Court to enable Taylor to realize' and pay Drury. In the meantime Taylor gave to his brother (pre sent defendant) a bill of sale over all the timber for amoimt due to him, and it was with a view to examine into the matter that the present action was brought,

The Magistrate stated that upon looking at the whole surroundings of the case, he was not satisfied with the action taken. Clearly the time asked in former action by defendant was for no other object than to defeat Drury's claim, and he looked with great suspicion on the present bill of sale,

Mr. M'Ooy remarked that in a bankruptcy suit the bill might be reduced ; but this was not a bankruptcy case, and as to the consideration, he was satisfied that the party executing the bill had got sufficient. It was sufficient in law if any consideration,

however small, was given, so as not to shock the" conscience ; even family affection in law was consideied ample consideration.

The Bench to give judgment on a future day.

John Taylor, who was summoned to appear as a witness, having disobeyed the summons, the Magistrate issued a warrant to bring him before the Court, and as it was clearly a disrespect to the Court, he would enforce the law.

Monday, December 5. (Before the same Magistrate.) Police v. Donovan. — Defendant was charged with being concerned in the removal of timber, and partially injuring same. A certificate from Dr. Stewart, to the effect that, through an accident, defendant was unable to attend the court. Case adjourned for one week.

Police v. E. Walsh. — Walsh was charged with having, on the morning of the 29th November, illegally removed timber opposite -the Camp Hotel, and injuring and destroying same to the value of 305., the property of one Alex. Humphrey. Mr. Copland appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Mr. James Docherty, being sworn, deposed to his being along with Mr. Walsh, Mr. Buchan, and Mr. Donovan, in Peel-street, on the morning of the 29th ult' He saw Walsh remove a board that was lying on the footpath opposite the Camp Hotel. He was removing the board in a workmanlike manner, and was using it very gently. There was a good deal of chaffing going on between us. Mr. Walsh appeared to be annoyed at the timber lying before the hotel. He himself thought it was no ornament having it there. He did not join, as Walsh was doing his own work, and he was doing it well. He did not bet a bottle of champagne about shifting the timber. Here Mr. Copland objected to anything about betting being introduced, as it was an illegal game. The Bench stated that Mr. Walsh was not charged with betting, and he could see no objection to the question. Witness continued — He kept aloof and allowed them to take their course. He did make a bet of a bottle of champagne that he was not game to remove the bricks. By Mr. Copland — The timber was on the footpath. I saw no damage done to the boards. The reason he did not wish to have anything to do with it was that he did not like to bo seen at that time in the morning. Humphrey, being examined, deposed to his having left the timber all right the previous night, and next morning found the same scattered and damaged. He could not tell who did it. He considered he sustained damage to the amount of 30s. He had permission from the Corporation to place building materials opposite the building beins; erected. Case dismissed.

Police v. Walsh. — Defendant was charged with having, on the morning of the- 29th Nov., illegally removed and damaged certain bricks, fcbe property of one David Whittefc. Mr. Copland appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Mr. Docherty, being called, deposed that on the morning of the 29th ult. He saw Mr. Walsh removing some bricks that were piled up against the Camp Hotel. He went about the work in a workmanlike manner, just as I would do myself. I said that if he did the work well, and in a workmanlike manuer, I would stand a bottle of champagne. It was altogether a lark on our part. I saw defendant throw off his coat and he tackled them like a man. I was eujoying the fun. He was throwing the bricks right before him just as I or any other man would do. Can't say whether he damaged any. D. Whittet, being called, stated that he had left the bricks neatly piled up on the previous night, and in the morning found them scattered all over Peel-street. He estimated the damage at 20s. The bricks were piled close to the front of the house.

Constable Titchener, being sworn, deposed to Walsh having made complaint to him about the timber iv front of Camp Hotel. He examined into the matter, and found that Humphrey had a permit to place building material opposite the new building. He saw a pile of bricks, and found that they were some four inches on the property of Mr. Walsh. Harrop occupied the Camp Hotel, and was paying 10s. per week for it, The front door of the hotel was not open. Mr. Walsh told him he had not done so as he was very much ashamed that his hotel should be occupied by an apothecary.

Mr Bastings being called, deposed to having given permission to Humphreys to place material opposite the building he was constructing. Mr Walsh had repeatedly spoken to him of the nuisance of having the building opposite his hotel. Told him he had his remedy under the Town and Country Ordinance. He had seen the bricks complained of ; the front of the hotel is two feet back from line of street. The porch in front is in a line with the street. If the bricks were within the line of the porch, they would be on the private property of Mr Walsh. Mr Copland, on reviewing the cvi.

dence, would produce Walsh's title to shew that the bricks were on his property, and the law is clear on the subject that inferior courts have no jurisdiction.

The Bench remarked that the matter of injury came clearly under the jurisdiction of the Court. Mr Walsh's title being produced, and the Bench having considered the whole circumstance, dismissed the case.