RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 409, 18 November 1874, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M, ) Friday, 15th November. William Andrews was charged with stealing ss. from John Farrer. Mr. Taylor defended the prisoner. It appeared that Andrews and others wero in tbe bar room of the Commercial Hotel, when Farrer came in. Farrer spoke of playing a game of bagatelle, and pulled out 55., which the prisoner knocked out of his hand, and picked up and pocketed. He refused to return it, but Farrer said he fcliooglli at iAiG time it was a. I&x-lc. Sergeant 3?fl»fell C&n*6 i» and had an interview with the prisoner about another matter, when Farrer accused prisoner of stealing ss. from him. This prisoner denied. Farrer, persisting, said tho money was in prisoner's lef t-haud trousers pocket, and the Sergeant finding it there arrested him. JVfgt, Taylor said that no doubt the first taking was a joke, and the denying the matter when frightened by the police would not make it a felony ; moreover, it was not the taking that was denied, but the stealing. His Worship said there was some doubt abbut the matter, and gave the prisoner the benefit of it. Case dismissed. Toe same person was then charged with stealing £1 from John M'Pherson. John M'Pherson said that he had occasion to hire a horse from Mr. Bamford, of the Victoria Livery Stables. He was not sober at the time. He paid Mr. Bamford, and got some silver and two £1 notes back, which he put in his side pocket loosely. Prisoner was with , him at the stables, and shortly after he missed £1. A lad named Cleary saw prisoner pick J the pocket of M'Pherson of something which he thought was a £1 note, and told Byford, the groom. This witness was much confused in cross-examiif&tion, and commenced to cry. He could not tell whether it was a £1 note or apiece of .paper. Mr. Byford said prisoner told him ''he had just made a touch, not to say anything about it," and shouted for all hands. Some more evidence was given, and Mr. Taylor addressed the court at considerable length, urging that the evidence of the two most material witnesses Mas contradictory and confused ; besides, M'Pherson was too intoxicated to be relied on as a witness. The expression made use of to B yford might mean anything, and did not necessarily moan that he had successfully stolen something. Cleary did not say that it was a note that was taken from the pocket of M'Pherson, and there was no proof that a £1 note, or indeed anything, was so taken. His Worship thought it would be dangerous to convict on the evidence. He could not rely much on M'Pherson's, evidence considering the state he was in ; and the boy's evidence was confused. Case dismissed. Hill v. the Corporation of the town of Latorence. — Claim of £47 10s for damages estimated by tho expenses to which the plaintiff was put, owing to alleged misrepresentations by the Town Clerk as to the position in which the Derwcnt-street bridge should be placed, and the damage caused by the breaking of a dam owing to the' negligence of the plaintiff £7 10s. Mr. Taylor and Mr. Henderson appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr. M'Coy for defendant. The Town Clerk, Mr. L. C. Holmes, had been employed by the Town Council to prepare plans and specifications for the bridge in Derwent-street, for which he was paid separately from and in addition to his usual salary ; this not being one of his duties as Town Clerk. The plaintiff, whose tender for the contract was accepted, asked Mr. Holmes to lay off the bridge ; Mr. Holmes accordingly laid off the first pier. The second pier was built out of its position, a;id had to be \uilled down. This mistake the plamtiff attributed to Holmes, ami through him to the Council. Holmes, however, in his evidence (being called for plaintiff) said that ho only laid off the first pier, and that thi* was correctly done, and that when doing so ho was acting as the servant of Mr. Hill, and not of the Corporation; he expected to be paid by Mr. Hill. This claim mentioned in the plaint appeared to have suffered from negligence Jof plaintiff's men quite as" much as from any other cause. Mi*. M'Coy in moving for a nonsuit said that the law was, that if an architect misled a contractor, it was the contractor who suffered and not the employer; this wa« a weaker case, as Mr. Holmes was not a professional man, and even had ho been, it was not shown that he was acting in his capacity of Town Clerk, or in other words, as the agent of the Corporation. The contractor had to look out for himself, and if he did not kno\v;his business, had to take the chance of being mialed, though it was not even proved that Holmes had done anything to mislead him; indeed, the contrary was shown. As for the dam, if the Corporation were to blame for its breaking, there was contributory evidence on the part of the plaintiff. As it was by this time 20 minutes to 12 o'clock, his Worship adjourned the Court at this stage to Monday. Monday, 16th November, 1874. (Before Dr. Stewart and E. Herbert, Justices P of the Peace.) Cranley v. Ah Toong. — Claim of £4 10s. Judgment for £3 15s Bd. and costs of Court 95. The other business was adjourned, as Mr. Carew was.unavoidably absent on duty. The Warden's Court was adjourned to next Monday.