R. M. COURT, DARGAVILLE.

Wairoa Bell, Volume IV, Issue 147, 27 May 1892, Page 2

R. M. COURT, DARGAVILLE.

20xii May 1802. (Before H, W. Bishop Esq. R M.) CRIMINAL CASES. Police v Dohiclt. —Assault. Mr McLeod for defendant. Withdrawn by leave of the Court. Corcoran -v McKinnon and White —Refusing to leave licensed premises when orderc d by landlord. Sergeant Carlyon prosecuted, Mr J. A. Beale defended. After hearing the evidence, which went to show that defendants had refused to leave when ordered by Mr Corcoran, but did not prove any very grave misconduct, His Worship discharged the accused. Pulho/n v Heatherstone —Failing to register a dog was adjourned till ,10th -June as defendant had not been served. Pul ha vi v Tidy was called but it appeared that the defendant though served had called on Sergeant Carlyon and returned the summons on the ground that his name was “ Ticldy ’ not “ Tidy.” Mr McLeod, who prosecuted on behalf of the County, argued that the service was sufficient and applied for a warrant of arrest. His Worship said the service was go id at law but as the Sergeant had accepted a return of the summons he would prefer to adjourn the case until 10th June, the defendant to hare notice. Mr McLeod consented and the case was adjourned. Inspector of Slaughterhouses v Dennis Campbell — Two charges were laid, one for Slaughtering at place no;, licensed and the other for failing to produce the skin of the slaughtered animal upon demand being made by the Inspector Mr Me Leod prosecuted and Mr E. C. Beale defended m both cases. Defendant pleaded ‘‘Not Guilty” and both charges were heard together. The evidence went to show that on 30th April Mr Hammond, the Inspector, and Constable Scott, hearing that defendant had slaughtered afe heifer on Motuparapara Island, called at his house and questioned him about it. He stated that he had killed the animal on Motuparapara Island on 29th April. The Inspector then demanded the skin. Defendant said it was at the spot where the animal had been killed and took the Inspector and the Constable to the Island to show it to them. He gave them contradictory accounts of the places of slaughter and shipment aud finally disappeared and was not again seen. Mrs Montorfamo gave evidence as to having seen defendant take the meat by boat from the Island, and Mr Smith, manager of the Kauri Timber Company, proved that defendant had no right to occupy the island as a run.

The defence was that the Island was defendant’s run though he was a trespasser in using it, and that he had killed the animal for his onn consumption. Convicted and fined 10s and costs in each case making a total of £5 3s. School Committee (through the Police) v James

McLean —Bailing to send a child to school. Defendant was ordered to send the child to school and to pay 7s costs. UNDEFENDED CASES. Piown Campbell and Co. v Boss, Langford v Boss, Thomson v Haswell, i'homson v Poclslington, Brown Campbell and Co. v Stanaway. —Mr Me Leod appeared for plaintiffs and Judgment was recovered in each case with costs. Sills -v Brown, —Mr McLeod for plaint,iff was settled out of court. Fitness v ILare Nepia —Mr McLeod for plaintiff was adjourned. Cor coran v Me Ginty. —Mr McLeod for plaintiff and Mr Beale for defendant. Plaintiff accepted amount offered by defendant conditionally on its being paid at once which was done and the case settle 1. DEFENDED CASES. Isaac and Emanuel Butter-worth v 7. W. Slater —Claim £93 for damages in taking Kahikatea timber to make a tram on plaintiffs’ property, allotments 1,8, 9, and 11, Whakahara, and £3 for breach of agreement to keep gates closed on the tramway. Mr J. A. Beale for plaintiffs and Mr McLeod for defendant. Mr McLeod moved to strike out the case on the ground ihat Mr Beale who had signed the plaint as “ Solicitor for plaintiffs” was not entitled to do so, as he had not taken out his practising certificate and paid his fees for the current year, and urged that as the plaiut must be signed by the plaintiff or his Solicitor, and the law Practitioners’ Act provided that no Solicitor should act as such until he had pail his fees and received his certificate, the whole proceedings were bad.

His "Worship said that he would not enquire into the matter If Mr Beale had acted as stated the Liw Society might take it up. When a parson signed as a Solicitor he did so at his ovrn risk, and he (the magistrate) would take it for granted that all was well. Mr Beale admitted his neglect to take out the annual certificate, but the case was proceeded with, notwithstanding Mr McLeod’s threat to appeal. Isaac Butter-worth produced an agreemenf by which he had sold his Kauri Timber to defendant also the agreement allowing defendant to make a road 33 feet wide through Allotment 1, Araqiohue, and by which defendant agreed to make and keep closed all necessary gates. Defendant cut and used, to make a tram, several valuable Kahikatea and Totara trees on his land. Defendant did not keep the gates shut and plaintiff lost 35 days driving cattle off his land through defendant’s neglect. Had never given defendant authority to cut the timber. Plaintiff was crossexamined at length bat the only fact illicited bearing on the ultimate decision was his admission of defendant’s right to clear the road 33 feet in width and to fell trees in that space. Airs Butter-worth gavo corroborative evidence.

Messrs Paxton and B. C. New were called to assess-the damage which they fixed at about £7 orJ£B. This closed plaintiffs case. Mr McLeod then moved to nonsuit the plaintiff on four grounds. 1. That he had not proved hi,stifle to the land as Mr Beale had forgotten to ask him whether he owned or occupied it or not. 2. That even if there was some evidence to show Isaac Bhtterworth’s title, there was none to prove Emanuel’s, and they must succeed together or fail entirely as they sued jointly. 3. That plaintiff had admitted defendant’s right to cut timber within the 33 feet allowed for a road and had not proved that the damage had been done outside that limit. 4. That ns to claim for leaving gate open the agreement mentioned Lot 1 Arapohue, while the particulars claimed for ‘Lot 1. 8. 9, and 11, Whakahara.’

Mr Beale replied after which His Worship hold that plaintiffs had failed to prove their case and accordingly nonsuited them with costs. Corcoran v William Dai gavel. —Claim £6 6s for three weeks’ board and lodgings at £2 2s per week, Mr McLeod for plaintiff, Mr J. A. Beale for defendant. Mr Corcoran and Mrs Stehr were called for ithe plaintiff and proved that defendant had "been notified that from the first date mentioned in particulars he would be charged £2 2s per week, and he continued to reside. The defendant and George Campbell were cross examined for defence. After counsel had addressed the Bench, judgment was given for the plaintiff for full amount and costs. Tercel v O' Connor. —Claim £5 for loss of time occasioned by, and damages for breach of contract. Mr K. C. Beale for plaintiff and Mr Me Leod for defendant. The plaintiff stated that Mr O’Connor had engaged his boat for a few day’s shooting down river, he himself to go as cook. This was on the 27th March and they were to go on the 30th of same month. On the 30th he presented himself but defendant said he would not be ready until next day He accordingly came again on the 31st when defendant refused to engage him, t He had thus lost two days for which he claimed £2 per day and he claimed a further £1 for breach of contract. Several witnesses were examined for plaintiff but their evidence tended rather to weaken his case, one Rau saying that on the 31st March (one of the days claimed for) plaintiff followed his usual occupation and caught 20 dozen fish. Mr O’Connor deposed that he had not engaged plaintiff at all. He told plaintiff that if he could not get the ‘ Kopuru ’ and plaintiff’s boat happened to be in readiness he Would be inclined to engage him rather than miss the trip. He positively did not engage plaintiff and did not mean to enter into any contract but merely wished plaintiff to understand that in the event of the steamer failing him he would take the boat, if circumstances suited and did not wish plaintiff to inconvenience himself. He took the steamer.

Mr McCowan, a witness subpoenaed but not called for the plaintiff, was called by Mr Mo Leod for the defence and gave corroborative evidence. Judgment for defendant.