THE COURTS.

Tuapeka Times, Volume 22, Issue 277, 22 May 1873, Page 5

THE COURTS.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWHENCE. (Before Vincent Pyke, Esq., R.M., and Dr. Stewart, J.P.) Friday, 16th May. Finlay Munro v. John Michael. — This was an action to recover £22 15a. 6d. for herding cattle. Mr. Taylor, of Taylor and Gooday, for the plaintiff. Finlay Munro deposed as follows : In June, 1870, Mr. Michael, promised me ss. per head per annum to look after his cattle, which were running on the ranges near Waitahuna. He gave me 58 to look after. He said I would not be paid for the odd 8, as they were not worth it. to which I agreed. I had a settlement with him in 1871, having borrowed money from him. Shortly after, I asked Michael if he was going to remove the cattle. He said they would remain on. They remained on till September, 1872. In June, 1872, he said he was not going to remove them. From 1871 to 1872, 1 had looked after them. There were then 52 head, besides 13 calves. I was not to charge for the calves until they were a year old. I charge now for attendance to June, 1873. I admit the contra account £7 03. 6d. On 28th March, I met Michael, and asked him for a settlement, He asked me if I had found the cattle. In cross-examination by defendant, witness said he admitted borrowiug £20 from him iv June, 1871 . In September, 1872, Michael took the cattle away. By the Bench : My duties were to look after the cattle, and see that they were on a certain part of the common, but I was not responsible for any loss . I looked after them every second day. W. E. Farrer, agent for Bank of New South Wales, gave evidence as to having paid a bill of Harris' for £40, accepted by Munro. This bill was paid on 19th June, 1871, by a cheque of John Michael's. John Michael corroborated the evidence of Mnnro as to the agreement to look after the cattle. In June, 1871, we had a row because he didn't meet Harris' bill . Munro said he couldn't muster the cattle. Munro asked mo to let him milk some of the cows, to which I consented. I took away the cattle in September, 1872, and gave Munro a bullock for his trouble in mustering, at which time I got 53 head. I had no conversation with Munro in 1872, about his continuing to look after cattle. Since June, 1871, I got some bullock hides from plaintiff. The bullock I gave him was worth £4. By the Bench : Munro did not make any claim until I received the summons. The Bench in giving judgment for defendant with 20s. costs of Court, remarked that plaintiff should never have brought such a case into Court Tuesday, 20th May. ( Before Vincent Pyke, Esq., R.M., and Dr. Knight, J P.) Mrs. Clme Que v. Ah Fat. — This was a a case of assault. Mr. M'Coy appeared for the prosecu tion, and Mr. Gooday for the accused. The following evidence was taken :—: — Sarah Ann Chue Que deposed that on the morning of the 13th inst.. about 4 o'clock, accused broke open the door of her room at the Chinese Camp, she being then in bed. He caught her by the hair of her head and beat her on the face and body. Mrs. See Que, hearing the noise, came in and saw accused beating her. On being cross-examined by Mr. Goodday, witness said that no one was in bed with her but the children. She had a light. Accused struck her on the head, and left a lump on her temple. The mark is now gone. Accused beat her all over the body He acted very indecently towards her. He was no relative of her husband, and never gave her any money or goods. She believed he would have beaten her more had another man not prevented him. She did not go to Mr. M'Coy until Saturday to consult him about the matter. By the Bench. — She went to the police about the matter. Sergeant Morton here stated that complainant called at the police camp and complained of the assault, and said she would lay an information next day, but did not do so. Elizabeth See Que deposed that she lived near Mra. Chu* Que, and tK* <v the morning of f!i o 13;h list «»>.•• ' r a givit nois« pr ft-fi-")- <".

used, and heard screams. She ran over to the house, and heard Mrs. Chue Que and Ah Fat. They were both inside the house. Mrs. Chue Que was at the door. Ah Fat was using bad language. She (witness) pushed the door open, and saw him beating complainant. lie pushed her on to the sofa, and looked under the bed to see if any one was there. She remained with Mrs. Chne Que all night. Witness said that her husband had tried to keep her from giving evidence in this case, and had beaten her in consequence of her determination to do so. Mr. Gooday asked for an adjournment, which was granted— the defendant being admitted to bail in two securities of £20 each. The case will be resumed on Friday next. A. Brydiev. T. Grundy.— This was asuit to recover the sum of £5 on an 1.0. U. given by defendant as one of the Clarkes Flat Road Committee to plaintiff, who was Treasurer for the Committee, as a guarantee on a contract for making a l-oad in Clarkes Flat which was taken by plaintiff, and the work completed to the extent of £b'6 6a. od., of which amount the Government has paid £33 3s. 3d. Mr. Copland -for plaintiff j Mr. M'Coy for defeudant. Plaintiff examined — Said he had completed the contract, but sued as Treasurer for the amount of 1.0. U. George Walker, settler, Clarkes Flat, deposed to the signature of Mr. Gruudy to the 1.0. U. He also gave an 1.0. U. for £4 for the road. The amount has been taken out in work. John Blair gave evidence to the effect that the plaintiff had completed the road as per contract. After much argument between the legal gentlemen and tho Bench, it was suggested by his Worship that an arrangement should be made. This suggestion was accepted, and the parties retired for the purpose ; but no arrangement having been come to, Mr. M'Ooy called the defendant, Thomas Grundy, who admitted signing the 1.0. U. for £5. The road line for which the 1.0. U. was a portion of the payment has never been done. His only objection to paying the money was because he did not believe that the plaintiff had earned it. Adjourned to Friday, to enable the parties to settle the matter. Correy v. Leslie. — This was an action to recover L 5, damages sustained by plaintiff through defendant's cattle trespassing on his land. Mr. Copland for plaintiff ; Mr. M'Coy for defendant. Correy deposed that he saw 14 head of Leslie's cattle in his land, and drove them out, and aftewards served him with a notice. He asked him to repair the fence, which he declined doing. Defendant's cattle ate and trampled down turnips and other crops to the amount of £5. He had served Leslie twice with notice to put up his share of the fence. Robert Kemp gave corroborative evidence as to the value of the damage done by defendant's cattle. George Leslie, defendant, swore that on the 24th April last he owned 13 head of cattle only, i saw Correy drive the cattle off my own ground over his own turnips at. six o'clock on the 9th May. The cattle were not on Correy's land. Judgment for defendant, with costs, 17s. Correy v. Ryan. — This was a similar case, the damages being laid at £10. The plaintiff deposed that on the 16th April he saw 14 head of defendant's cattle on hia ground. I complained to him about it, and he asked me what I wanted for the damages. On the 24th of April, I found 4 of Ryan's horse 3on my ground, which the defendant took away. On other occasions afterwards several of his cattle came in. On the Bth May, defendant's bull came into my ground with 3 cows. I did not drive the cattle into my ground. Robert Kemp gave corroborative evidence as to the damag9 done by defendant's cattle. Martin Ryan swore he had not had a bull for the past 3 weeks. His cattle had been turned out some time since at Mount Stewart. Cross-examined by Mr. Copland — I offered to pay Correy for the damage, but he would not take anything. Judgment for plaintiff, L 2, with costs of Court. Wednesday, May 21. (Before Vincent Pyke. Esq., R.M.) Mrs. Chu Que applied to the Court for leave to withdraw the charge against Ah Fat. Mr. Pyke considering from the evidence that a most brutal assault had been made, and that, although the Camp was full of men, not one attempted to go to the rescue of the woman. lie, therefore, considered he would not be doing right to allow the prosecution to be withdrawn. (Our report of the Warden's Court will appear in our next issue).