RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 238, 22 August 1872, Page 7

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. LAWRENCE.

Hoy day, Acocst 19. (Before J. F. H«rb*rfc, Kaq , J.P., and Dr. Stewart,, J.P.) Thomas Drean, for being drunk and disorderly, was lined 403. , With tlie USUaI alternative. T. W. Mailler, John Hughes, William Roscow, and John M' hi tyre, charged with having unregistered dogs in their possession, were each fined 40a., and 6s. 6d. costs. Inspector I'homsnn stated that it was with great reluctance these informations had bean laid, as the penalty was a heavy one ; but the police were compelled to do so. If the parties had registered their dogs, he would not have pressed the cases. The Banch remarked that they had no option in **»<» n^ttox-, and had inflicted the lowest penalty allowed by the l.v.v, and drew the attention of the defendants to the fact that payment of the fine did not exonerate them from liability to register thair dogs. If they were again summoned they would be liable to a fine of £5. Oli ver Dawson was charged with having j an unregistered dog in his possession. < 'ons table Bainf ord said that on the 26th July he found a dog tied up in ddfeudant's stable, and had previously seen it with him. Defendant denied the ownership of the dog, and also that it was in his stable on the date specified. Joseph Hewitt stated that he was at Dawson'a on the 26th July several times, from eleven o'clock in the morning, and that the dog was not in the stable on that day. The dog belonged to a man named Kelly, and had been registered in his name that morning. Constable Bainford, recalled, said the dog was in the stable between half-past eight and nine o'clock. The dog having been registered, the case was dismissed, upon parment of costs. Holmes v. Joseph Mackay. —Claim for 205., for ra*ea. Mr. Canning handed in a written authority to acton Mr. Mackay'a hehalf. Mr. Copland aud Mr. M'Coy objected to Mr. Canning appearing, and the Bench rule 1 that he could not appear. Mr. Holmes testified to the rates being due. Mr. Canning asked permission to make a statement. Mr. M'Coy again objected, as if Mr. Canning were allowed to make a statement it would be practically appear ng on Mr. Mackay's behalf. Mr. Canning then asked for an adjournment for a fortnight. The Bench decided that they could not recognise Mr. Canning in any way. Mr. Mackay had been summoned, and did not appear, so they had to consider the case undefended. Judgment was given for the amount claimed, with costs. Mr. Holmes applied for expenses, as this was the second time he had had to summon Mr. Mackay for rates. The Bench stated that they would make no exceptions, and declined to grant the expenses asked for. Bastings and Co. v. O'Ghrman. — Claim fu»r goods sold and delivered. Mr. Mouat ; appeared for plaintiffs ; Mr M'Coy for j defeudaut. A sot-off for a suit of clothes supplied to Hewitt, one of the partners in the firm of Bastings and Co., was pleaded, and the balance, threepence, paid into Court. Mr. M'Coy applied that the case should stand over till the case of O'Gorman v. Hewitt, which stood next on the list, was heard. Mr. Mouat objected to this oourse, and the Bench refused to grant the application. Mr. Arbuckiewaf called, when Mr. M'Coy asked for a nonsuit, as the names of the plaintiffs were not in the numinous. Mr. Mouat con* tended that it was too late to apply for a non-suit, and the Bench lisid power to amend, aud applied that thi* summons shuuH be amended by the iasertion of the names of the plaintiff*. After an argttm*nt^ bew-mx i^uusol, tha Bench decided that the summons should ba amended. Mr. Arbudde teati-ied to tho gale and delivery of the goods, and in cross-examination said that defendant had informed him that Hewitt had purchase^! sama clothed, aud Us {O'vxonnan) agreed t<» take wood in payment. By Mr. Mima* : The clothes were not supplied upon the firm's order. The receipt of fchd goods was admitted. Mr. M'Coy submitted thit the arrangements of partners amongst themselves had nothing to do with the outside public, Qae ptttpac

could bind the otliers~«^4&6-cm»raeHjf~ """"their" logUiiiiate business, ancTihe transaction between Hewitt and '©"Cngrman jvas a legitimate busiuess transaction. If Hewitt was nut, by the deed of partnership, allowed to enter into §uch a transaction, he^ was responsible to his partners. Mr. Mouat contended that the sjet-off could not be entertained, as \t was not a mutual debt between plaintiffe and defeip .tlsint. The fcrue test was whether defendant' -could recover .from plaintiffs the Amount, which lie opined he could not. Besjdes, defendant- had sued Hewitt for ihe game, debt, and the .money-had been "psjacfjntq court." Defendant said he made a suit of clothes for Hewitt, and on ask r ing for paytnenj; he (Hewitt) said he could hot pay, and asked him to take out the amount' in wood, which he agreed to do. He went to Arbuckle, and, related the. circumstances, and Arbuckle said it was all right. He was under the. impression that Hewitt had arranged for the woqd. Mr. M'Coy he,re aske.d permission to put* put in another plea— payment. Witness cross-examined : The clothes, were ordered before the wood was ordered. Was sneing Hewitt for the amount due on the clothes, and had him arrested on warrant, as he (witness) had been informed that he was going to leave the country. Mr. Mouat said it was useless to proceed with the case, and applied that judgment should stand over till the case ' of O'Gorman v. Hewitt was heard. The Bench complied with the request. Hogg' v. Charlesivorth. — Judgment by default for amount and costs. O'Gorman v. Heipitt.— Claim for £8 Is., balance of account for clothes and horse - hire. Mr. M'Coy for plaintiff; Mr. Mouat for defendant. Plaintiff stated that he made a suit of clothes for defendant, the price of which was £6 6s , and lent him a horse for ten <fo>'Sj tor which lie charged him ?s. Sd. per day. £2 2iad been paid on account. Cross-examined : Hewitt came for the horse before the clothes were made. Witness intended to charge for the horse when he lent it." Was not in the habit of hiring horses. Had lent the horse to Mr. Adams, and intended to charge him. The suit the amount was claimed for was the same put in as a set-off to Bastings' claim. Hewitt asked, when he paid the £2, that he should take the remainder out in wood. Left it to his counsel whether Ije "would take judgment in this case or stand by~ the set-off. For the defence, Joseph Hewitt said that thr.ee weeks after he ordered the clothes, he went" to O'Gorman's to see if they were ready. While there he said he was going to Tuapeka Mouth, and Q'Gorman asked how; he was going down. On witness* replying either •svjilking or ' riding, he said, that he had two horses in the Govqrnrnerit paddock, one of \yhich. he (witness) coujd have. He stated A'cUros •\yas riding the horse al} oyer the country, jind he could not refuse to let him (Adams) have it, as it was in the Government paddock, and witness would be doing him a favour by taking the animal away. On the same morning, O'Gorman asked him for some .money, 'and witness gave him £2. The quit was not then made. Witness would not have taken the horse if he thought he j- would have to pay for it, and certainly . would not have Kept it ten days. Had offered to pay for* the clothes three times. The first' time, Q/Gorniaji said he wanted . some wood, and would get paid that way. Witness 'said all r}ght, and informed Mr. Arbuckle.' 'On" another occasion he went with '"the a^connt for timber, and told .. (3'Gorinan if' he would "give the balance he would settle the account wjth the company. " This O'Gorman refused to do. Pross-examined : Witness went to Tuapeka . Mouth on the business of the company. ] Kever had a message from O'Gorman to return the horse. Mr. Mouat submitted , |hat 'lending the horse was an act of 'voluntary courtesy. Defendant . liad previously tendered the money, and * had now paid it into, court. He asked ; for a judgment for costs, in. this, case, and also in the case of "Bastings and Co. v. O'Gorman. Mr. M'Coy having addressed the Bench on behalf of O'Gorman, the , Bench' gave judgment in the case ' of Bastings and Co. v. O'Gorman for amount claimed, less 3d. paid into cpnrt, with eosis'of ebnri. In the " O ( 'Grorjnan „ y. Hewitt, judgment was given for amount paid in^o court, without cps^.' ' •