RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 128, 14 February 1866, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, 13th February.

(Before G. G. FitzGerald, Esq., R.M.) .Dbukk and Incapable.— John Brown, brought up on this charge, was fined 10s. ; or, in default, to bo imprisonod for twentyfour hours. Dbunk and DisonDEßtY.— James Pattereon was fined LI ; or, in default, to bo imprisoned for forty-eight hours, on this charge. Breach op the Pomoe Ordinance. — Eegina by Police v. M'Landress, Hepburn, and Co.— Sergeant M'Guiness stated that on Friday night lost ho seized five pieces of bacon which wero hanging up in tho storo of defendants, in a very bad stato, being quite rotten. He took tho bacon to "the camp, whero it was v examined by Dr Ryley. In answer to a question put by Mr. Hepburn, tho witness said that a piece cut off one of tho ham? in tho store was sound, but tho remainder of them were not so. L. Lazard deposed that ho was a storekeeper in Rovoll- street ; that on Wednesday last ho bid for somo bacon at M'Lanf dress, Hepburn, nnd C 0.% which was knocked down to him. When ho saw it hanging up ho thought it was rather bad, but not very muoh co, but ho afterwards discovered it was very far gone indeed. Ho told tho clerk ho ■would not take it, but tho clork said ho should do so. Ho, however, did not tako it. On Mr. Hepburn asking witness several question!, he said that nt tho store, boforo tho sale, ho saw there was a bunch of innggots as largo as his fist. Ho could have washed them away, but could not remedy tho rottenness of tho bacon. Ho was not shamed out of taking it by people making observations about its state. Dr. Ryley testified aa to having examined fivo pieces of bacon at tho camp, and to finding them in a putrid stato. Mr. Hepburn, ono of the defendants, said that he had sold tho bacon for what it was worth, and at such a prico as would havo enabled tho buyer to throw half of it away, or oven to boil it down for lard, and then derive a profit, from it. Ho considered that tho bacon belonged to Lazard. The Magistrate inflicted a fino of L 2.

CIVIL OABEB.

Gibson v. Brown — An notion for L 5 sa, on a promissory note given for work and labor done. Verdict for the amount claimed. Hausen v. Dickaon— This was an action brought to recover L 6, for monoy lent. Tho plaintiff proved that when Dickson was working for him last month, at the Post Office • Hotel, ho applied for and obtained a loan of L 5, for tho purposo of laying a wager with . Mr Victor, and said tho stakes wero afterwards given, to him as stakeholder. Mr Victor eaid, that on tho 1 16 th of last month ho was at the Post Office Hotel, when Gibson said, • " I know you aro an Invercargill man." Witness replied that ho had never been in Invercargill. Defendant then said ho wouldbet L 5 that ho could prove Viotor had been there, vrhioh bet was accepted by tho latter. Dickson borrowed the L 5 from Mi- Hanson, and the stakes wore lodged in his hands, on tho understanding that" tho bet was to be decided tho • day after tho ball. Witness wont to tho hotel on tho day named, but defendant did not makes his appoaranco. On tho day after, Mr Hansen paid witness tho stakes. Dickson, oii being sworn, stated ho had borrowed tho money and mado tho bet, as before statod ; had called with his witnesses at tho Post Office Hotel, but Mr Hanson was not then to bo seen ; and suid ho afterwards saw Mr Hanson, who said that on tho next night he ■would pay tho money over to Victor. Tho defendant protested against this, saying that 1,5 only wore to bo. given to Victor. Tho defendant on being asked by tho magistrate if he had any witnesses to can, said that they hod loft Hokitika. A verdict v/aa then given for the plaintiff. Throokmorton v. Thompson. — Au action to recover £15, amount of commission duo on a bill. Mr Macgregor appeared for tho plaintiff, and commenced by stating that tho defendant, when in Nelson, wanted a sum of £300, for which ho drew a bill of oxchango in favor of Lloyd, Taggart and Op., upon 0. L. Throckmortoh ; that, upon a bill of this sort, a commission of 5 per cent, was usually allowed. The defendant gavo this bill to Lloyd, Taggart and Co., and afterwards got somo else, to whom ho assigned the cattle, to advance tho money, without giving tho plaintiff an opportunity of doing so. — Benjamin Taggart, of tho firm of Lloyd, Taggart and Co., said that a bill drawn by defendant on the plaintiff for £300 was given to him by Captain Mundle, of the Wonga Wonga. Ho knew Mr Lazarus, a clerk to tho plaintiff, and pn meeting htta in tlio street, requested him to

pay tho bill, but Lazarus said ho had received no advices on tho matter. Ho, howover, a little time afterwards called on witness, and said ho was ready to give a choquo for tho £300. This was about an hour and a-hulf after meeting Mr Lazarus in tho Street. On being questioned by the defendant, tho witness said that ho did not consider it necessary to leave the bill at Mr Throckmorton's office. Had tho money not been paid to witness, ho would havo sold tho cattle. — By Mr Macgregor: Did not present tho bill in tho usual way, but asked for tho monoy in tho streot. — A. Lazarus, clork to tho plaintiff stated that on Mr Taggart asking him to tako up tho bill, lio told him to tako it to tho oftico, but this ho refused to do, saying ho would not let tho bill gq out of his hands. Witness afterwards called at Mr Taggart's offico, but ho was not in thon. Mr Meyer, another of the plaintiff's clerks had called at the offico of Lloyd, Taggart and Co, with a cheque for £300, and was told that defendant did not want it as he had mado other arrangements. In reply to questions put by the defendant, witness said that ho was authorised to pay and receive moneys on Mr Thrgckmorton's account. Ho did not pay the bill, but had offered to do so by presenting tho , cheque at Lloyd, Taggart, and Co.'s office. Ho would havo been entitled to sell tho cattle had the money been accepted, as the paying tho bill would havo had tho effect of hypothecating tho cattle, so that repayment of tho loan could bo obtained. Sigismund Meyer, a clork to plaintiff, proved ho had called at Lloyd,* Taggart, and Co's omco with a cheque for £300, at about noon of tho day whon Mr Lazarus had been asked by Mr Taggart to tako up tho bill. Tho defendant being sworn stated that ho arrived in Hokilika with cattle and sheep, and said ho had drawn a bill in Nolson on Mr Throckinorton for £300, to obtain money to pay freight, &c. Upon calling at Lloyd, Taggart, and Oo.'s ofllco, Mr, Taggart said ho must havo tho money at onco, and that iho bill had not been paid by Throokmorton. Defendant then wentout and got tho money and paid Mrr Taggart. Mark Sprot said that ho mot M Lazarus on tho day in question, and told him a, gentleman had arrived who had montioned something about a bill which ho wanted Mr Throckmorton to pay, upon which Mr Lazarus said ho did not wish to havo anything to do with it. Cross-examined by Mr Macgrogor — Mr Lazarus said he would not tako up the bill until he had seen it, or something to that effect. — Mr Macgregor said he had never heard such a lame defence mado before. Tho defendant hnd drawn a bill upon the plaintiff ; had made upo of his name by allowing tho bill to go out of his hands, and' then, because the plaintiff bad not paid it before it was presented, he wished to deprive him of tho commission usually allowed in such cases. — The Magistrate said, that ns the plaintiff had not refused to pay tho bill, he would give a verdict in his favor with costs. Vincent v. Lynch— This was an action for 12s, amount of a day's wages alleged to be due. The plnihtiff stated that defendant had engaged him to work at his bakery, commencing on Saturday, 3rd February, but when the p]aintiff presented himself at tho time named, he was told his services were not required, as another man had been engaged.— Defendant stated, that ho told plaintiff on Friday, the 2nd inst., to call the < next day and he would then tell him if he could give him employment, and when tho plaintiff called on Saturday he told him ho had engaged another man . Judgment for the defendant.

Kanft v. Luhning. — An action for LB, the prico of a tobacco-pressing machine. Plnintiff stated, that ho had received instructions from defendant to inako a tobacco-pressing machine, of which he could obtain particulars < from Mr Shiors, the tobacconist, who had ono of tho sort required. Plaintiff bbw tho machino, and made a similar ono, but on delivering it tho defendant refused to pay tho sum asked (L 8), as ho thought it was too much. Tho defendant said that tho plaintiff hud mado tho machine without sufficient instructions boing givon, and that had he known that a sum of L 8 would bo tho prico ho would not havo allowed tho plaintiff to muko it, as ho thought 30s or L 2 was 1 amply sufficient. In answer to a question put by plaintiff,^defendant said tho plaintiff did not come to his place with another man and say ho would now commence tho machino, as ho had scon tho ono atShiers*. Tho plaintiff at this Btago of tho proceedings said ho could bring tho man who. had boon with him at tho timo, and asked for, an adjournment. • Caso adjournod till to-morrow morning. '* ( Woods v. Harding — An notion for LI 13s 6d, balauco duo on an agreement. Tho plaintiff staled that ho had been engaged by tho dofondant to work in a claim at tho Wnimca for L 5 a week, and that, at tho end of the week ho refused to pay tho amount agreed on. Tho defence was that it was not usual to pay a. minor for moro days than thoso upon which he is actually at work j and during tho week when plaintiff was engaged thoro had beon two wet days. Judgment for tho defendant. There wero eight cases 'in which no appearances were put in, either by plaintiffs or dofondants.

Tho Court adjourned till this morning at 11 o'clock'.