RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 399, 14 October 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M., and E. Herbert, Esq., J.P.) THTTfiSDAY, Bth Ootoeeh. Police v. Margaret Stevenson. — The accused was charged with having, on or about the 9th September, 1874, feloniously stolen from tho shop of Francis Oudaille, at Havelock, drapery and other good's to the value of £5 10s. Mr. M'Coy appeared for the prisoner. Objection was taken to the information, which was withdrawn. A second information of tbe same character was then proceeded with, the value of the goods being about £30. Francis Oudaille deposed that the prisoner was a domestic servant of his. Some time ago she asked for leave to go to town, which was granted. She returned in the latter end of August, having a box witli her, which from its weight, or rather lightness, appeared to be empty. Having niisaed goods from his store, he obtained a search warrant, and told tho prisoner he must search her boxes. Constable Hughes and A. Ehrenberg, his storeman, were present. She allowed them to open tho box produced, which was the same as that previously referred to, and it was then full of his^foods. He knew them to be hi 3, and sho admitted having taken them from the store. Witness identified the goods seriatim. No one bat himself, Mrs. Oudaille, Mr. Ehrenberg, and witness's son had any right to deal with these goods. Witness had not authorised any one to take them, nor had he sold them. . This witness was not cross-examined A. Ehrenberg and Constable Hughes corroborated this testimony ; the former also said that he had not sold the goods, nor authorised any one to take them. The ease was then adjourned till the next day. Friday, 9th Ootobee. Jeffery v. Kerr. — Summons not returned ; adjourned for one week. , » - Jeffery v. Graham. — Claim of £4 7s 6cJ^r No appearance of the defendant. Judgment for the amount claimed and costs of Court 10s. Long v. Rennert. — Claim of £4 12s fop board and lodging ; Jfive weeks at 21s a week leas 13s paid. No appearance of the defendant. Judgment for the amount claimed, and costs of Court 103. Mr. M'Coy who appeared for plaintiff did not ask for professional costs. Bailey v. Chaplin. — Claim of £44 15s for professional services at the scene of the late coach accident near the Beaumont , at the request of the defendant. Of this amount £25 was for the services of Dr. Halley, and £19 15s for fees and expenses for which he was responsible to Dr. Stewart for necessary assistance. Mr. M'Coy appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Copland for the defendant. Mr. Copland objected that the bill of particulars was not sufficient. His Worship allowed an amendment. Mr. Copland pleaded never indebted as alleged, denied that the services wero rendered at the request of the defendant, and that assistance was procured at his request. Mr. M : Coy having stated that the services were rendered at the request of Eichard Williams, the agent for Chaplin or Cobb and Co., and that it was proper to allege this as the request of Chaplin, he put in the " General Government Gazette " to show that plaintiff was duly registered under the Medical Practioner's Act, 1869. Ebenezer Halley, the plaintiff, proved that ho proceeded to the scene of the accident at the request of Mr. Williams, where he found several persons injured; some very seriously. So severe were some of the injuries that it would have been improper for him to operate without consulting with another medical man if one was obtainable ; he accordingly sent for Dr. Stewart, requesting him also to bring chloroform ar.d the necessary appliances. Dr, Stewart arrived 'shortly with these, and rendered necessary assistance. His charges were Very moderate, indeed. A Parish Union at home would pay for an operation on a pauper as much as he was charging for aq operation. - Alexander Stewart, M.D., deposed to what passed, and corroborated the evidence of the last Witness as to the necessity for medical assistance. He described the services rendered and saij that the charges wore extremely moderate. Jonas Harrop supplied some of the surgical appliances required. He had sent in his bill to Mr. Chaplin through Mr. Williams. He had been paid. Mr. Williams, of tho "Victoria Hotel, said lie was agent for Chuphn and Co. He had bo general authority, but was -agent for booking only. Hearing of the accident, he asked Dr. Halley to go out, who did so. He had conversed with Mr. Chaplin since on the subject, who did not object \o his action in the matter ;* he would pay anything in reason, but thought the charge too high. Mr. Copland said there were only two medical men in the place, who were both-in-terested. They had not fully sec out tho items, so that he could not get out any medical evidence to show the charges were too

high. He would ask for an adjournment for this purpose. Mr. M'Coy, in view of the imputation made, did not oppose the adjournment. Adjourned to Monday, the 19th inst. Police v. Margaret Steyemon. — This case ms resumed, Mr ( Oudaille's son was called to show that he had not authorised, any one to take the goods. Mrs. Oudaille identified the goods, and had not sold them. In crossexamination, she admitted that she could not say whether she had sold some of them or not. The defence was reserved. Tho prisoner on being asked whether she would prefer being tried at Dunedin or Lawrence, chose the latter place, though she will have to wait her trial two months longer. Oardner v. Irvine. — Claim of £14 lls 2d ; the money was paid into Court. Mr. Gooday, who appeared for tho plaintiff, applied for expenses of the day, as notice of the payment had not been given, and plaintiff had come a long distance. The plaintiff not being in Court at the time to prove he had no notice, the application was not planted. HUI v. The Corporation of the Town of Lavrrence. — Mr. Gooday for the plaintiff j Mr. M'Coy for the defendant. This was a claim of £5, which sum the plaintiff had been obliged to pay as a fine on stamping his lease from tho Corporation, which fine, it was alleged, accrued through the negligence of defendant. The case was opened by Mr. Gooday, when owing to the lateness of the hour, the Court adjourned. Monday, 12th October. Hill v. The Corporation of the Town of Lawrence. — Mr. Gooday said that in 1872, a lease had been granted to James Hill (the plaintiff) for 99 years. The Corporation had no power to grant leases for more than 21 years. In July, 18?3, the Corporation "were able to geb an ordinance passed rah" datingthis lease and others. It was not executed until the end of October of the same year. They were, however, dated the day before the passing of the Ordinance. There was by the Stamp Act a "fine of £5 if documents were not stamped within three months of their execution. Owing to the negligence of the Corporation, Mr. Hill had to pay this fine, and now sought to recover the amount foi* the defendant. called the plaintiff and the Town Clerk f> in support of the plaintiff's case. It was elicited in cross-examination that Mr. Hill was not only a member of the Corporation at the time of the granting and execution of the lease, but also a member of the Reserves Committee, who managed this part of the Corporation businos9, and that he attested the execution of this and other leases by the Corporation. Mr. M'Coy rested the defence on the contributed negligence of the plaintiff. Ho said that had the lessee not been one of the Councillors he could not recover, as it was as much owing? to his own laches, as to that of the lessor that his lease had not been executed in good time ; still less could he recover being a Councillor, as he would be guilty of the neligenee attributed to the Corporation if there was any, and being a wrong-doer, he could, not recover contributions from his cotvrtfaqsors. Judgment reserved. His Worship suggested the propriety of a settlement. Pearson v. Draper. — Claim of £20, for breach of agreement to keep Mount Pleasant Farm, of which the defendant was tenant, in good repair, and to expend the manure on the land. Mr. Henderson for the plaintiff Mr. M'Coy for the defendant. After several technical objections had been discussed, John Pearson gave evidence of the letting of the farm, and of certain dilapidations on it when possession was given up. Archibald Hogg and Mrs. Pearson also gave evidence of a somewhat trivial damage. It did not appear, however, that the premises were much woko on the 'whole than when the tenancy commenced. The defendant and Messrs. Watson, Button, and Brunton, whom he hud employed in effecting repairs, were called, and deposed to the state of the premises. Mr. M'Coy said that if the technical objections were overruled, and his client had to answer the case on its merits, it would appear that, though some repairs had Viot been made, the premises were on the whole improved during the tenancy of his client. The damages to the premises were so^trifling, and were so obviously dictated by a spirit of revenge, as the parties ■were constantly in Court, that he trusted his Worship, on the principle de minimis non curat lex, would dismiss the case. Judgment reserved. Lee On and otliers y. Oapstick. — Mr. Gooday for the plaintiffs. Claim of £2 lls., labor done digging potatoes and filling bags. Judgment for tlie plaintiffs, Tiritli. costs. An 4 'applieation was made £or a temporary transfer of the general license of the Golden Age Hotel, Waitahuna, from Mr. Walker to } . Mr. Tanton. The Police had no objection. Granted until next licensing court day.