RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 178, 6 July 1871, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., R.M.)

Monday, July 3. Andrew Cusack was charged on the information of Constable Henderson with using obscene language in the public streets on the evening of the 2nd inst. The prisoner was also charged with assaulting the police. Prisoner pleaded intoxication.

His Worship fined the prisoner 403 or seven days' imprisonment on the first charge, and 20s or seven days' imprisonment on the second charge, to be cumulative.

Mr. Gooday applied for a transfer of a bottle license from On Tie to Ah Sou. — Granted.

Mears v. Francis. — Claim, £24, for goods sold and delivered. Mr. Copland for plaintiff, and Mr. M'Coy for defendant.

Mr. Copland explained that the defendant in this action left the district some twelve days since, and the evening previous to his going away caused nearly the whole of his goods and machinery to be moved off the premises in which he had been carrying on his business. The machinery had been traced to Mr. Bennett, who admitted having them in his custody.

Mr. M'Coy applied for an adjournment on the ground that the summons had not been served on the defendant personally ; also, that he had a set-off for £9 10s ; and that he (Mr. M'Coy) had instructions from Mr. Francis to effect a compromise with his creditors.

His Worship said that in this case personal summons was dispensed with, and refused the adjournment.

Mr. Mears then proved his account against the defendant. Judgment for amount sued for and costs.

Mr. Copland then applied for immediate execution, which led to lengthened arguments between the learned counsel.

His Worship considered there was very good grounds for immediate execution. Removing the goods looked very much like giving a preference to a particular creditor. The Bankrupt's Court was open to enable persons in difficulties to make a fair distribution of their estates. The Court would not countenance such conduct. Immediate execution granted. Ryan v. M'Alister. — Mr. Copland for the plaintiff, and Mr. M'Coy for the defendant.

Mr. Copland stated that he applied on behalf of the plaintiff for execution upon a judgment that had been obtained in this Court some time since, when the defendant was either to return six head of cattle belonging to plaintiff (that he had wilfully driven away) or pay a certain sum of money. The defendant had only returned three of the cattle.

Mr. M'Coy contended that all the cattle had been returned, and called

John M'Alisfer, sworn, deposed — I returned all six of the cattle that I drove out of my paddock — three on one occasion, two at another time, and one afterwards. John Miller was with me when I turned them out of my paddock.

John Miller, sworn — I was with M'Alister when he drove six head of cattle out of his paddock. I have seen all those cattle since, from one week to a month ago. lam well acquainted with cattle in the neighbourhood.

John Dumbleton, sworn — I was with Mr. M'Alister when he returned the six head of cattle to Mr. Ryan. They were branded BD and DR.

Mr. Copland said he should call witnesses to prove that the cattle returned were not the same as those driven away. Daniel Ryan, sworn, deposed — I have only received thr^e of the cattle M'Alister drove away. I am quite certain of this, because the other cattle returned were never out of my possession.

John Draper, sworn — I know one of the cattle that I was told M'Alister returned.

John Ross, sworn — I saw the cattle driven away by M'Alister. I could not describe the colour of any of them. I was on the wrong side to see the brand.

Thomas Scott, sworn — I went to Tokomairiro with Ryan. I saw three cattle in the pound belonging to Ryan. I have seen those cattle before with three others running near the Waitahuna River. They used to run with some belonging to myself. Mr. M'Coy submitted to the Court that it had been fully proved the cattle returned were the same as those driven away. The evidence on the other side was entirely one of supposition.

His Worship said that it would take some time to carefully compare the brands, and would therefore defer his decision until to-morruw morning. M'Alister v. Ryan. — Claim, £10, damage for trespass. Mr. M'Coy appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Copland for defendant.

Mr. Copland applied for a non-suit on the- ground that the complaint was "not sufficiently denned. Mr. M'Coy replied. The Court overruled the allegations for a non-suit.

John M'> lister proved damage done to a considerable greater amount than that sued for.

John Miller corroborated the last witness.

Daniel Ryan deposed that he received no notice of damage done, and that other cattle besides his had trespassed on plaintiffs ground. Judgment deferred.

Tuesday, Jcly 4. (Before the same Magistrate.)

Ryan v. M'Alister. — Hk Worship concluded, after considering the evidence, that the red heifer had not been returned. He therefore gave judgment for £2, and £3 Is costs.

M'Aliste.'- y. Ryan. — Hi 3 Worship, after considering the arguments of counsel, was of opinion that the matter included in the plea of set-off was not within the statute, and could not be pleaded, as was argued by Mr. M'Coy. He considered that it was clear damage had been done to M'Alister's crop, and that it was not less clear that he had neglected to fence his paddock securely all round. He would therefore give judgment for £6, and £4 11s costs.