RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 130, 16 February 1866, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, 15tii Fed. (Before Gf. G. FitzGerald, Esq. II. MJ

Drunk and Incapable.'— William Todd brought up on this charge, was fined 10s, or in default to be imprisoned for 24 hours.

OIVIL OAPES.

Ranft v. Luhning. — This caso was postponed on Tuesday for tho production of a witness on behalf of tho plaintiff. This witness to-day proved that the defendant had been told by plaintiff, in witness's presence, that tho maoliino would be commenced at once, and to tliis defendant made no objection. The defendant did not appear. Judgment for the amount claimed, and 13s costs.

Tempcrly v. Callagliau.— An action to recover amount of promissory note. Mr Oakos appeared for thoplaintiiT. Tho dofondant did not appear. The plnintiff deposed that ho was a storekeeper. About a fortnight ago ho gavo defendant a promissory note to collect tho money 0n.,. Upon questioning the defendant tho day boforo yesterday at the Grey, the latter said that he had not obtained the monoyi as ho had lost tho note. The plaintiff believed the monoy had been collected. Judgment tfy default.

Atkins v. Sykes.— The plaintiff said he had been engaged by Captain Sykoa to work for a fow days on board his ship on trial. AfteU two days had elapsed plaintiff told defendant that the wages would bo £6 a month. The dofondant refused to work for this sUm, and demanded 30s. for tho two days' work he had performed. The Magistrate said that 15s. a day would bo oxtravagaut wages for suoh work, and g*vo judgment in favor of tho plaintiff for

, Cooper v. Howley and J. P. M'Kenna.— • An notion for £20, for illegally closing the bar of plaintiff's public-houso. Mr Macgregoi? appeared for the plaintiff, and Ml* O'Loughlin for tho defendants. F. R. Cooper deposed that ho was the landlord of the Firo Brigade Hotel. At about 20 minutes to 6 o'clock on the ovoning of the 6th instant, tho defendants and Mr Crump camo into his house, and at onco lookod tho door, saying that they now had possession. The plaintiff resisted, and , took a tomahawk to for^o ■ the door open, but ho was pushed back by the defendants. He then remained quiet, seeing that resistance would be of no avail, and the house remained closed until about ten o'olook, when a constable ordered the door to be opened. He heard several customers knock at the door for admission, but defendants would not allow him to let them in . Mrs Cooper was allowed to leave tbe house, and she went for the police. He was threatened by the polico that ho should be fined for not keeping his house open . * Cross-examined by Mr O'Loughlin — Witness had had a Mr Crump as a partner at one time. Robert Donaldson, said that he was a reporter. Was at the Pire Brigade hotel on the evening of tho 6th instant, arid saw the defendants and Crump enter. Crump said he had sold the house, and that defendants were the purchasers. Defendants closed tho door, Crump looking it, and giving defendants the «key. The plaintiff took a hatchet that was hanging on a nail in, the wall, and tried to force open the door. Defendants then rushed up to him and pulled him back. He then called upon witness to take notice of what was being done. The house was closed for two or three hours, until oponed by the police. Tho defendant* allowed Mrs Cooper to go out, but thoy would not permit any ingress. Several people kuookod at tho door, but to no purpose. At lost some ono outside I domanded admittance in the Queen's name. Defendants did not comply until tho demand hod been made soverul times. Sergeant M'Guinoss proved, that from information he received, he went to tho hotel, demanded and obtained admission, and that there he saw tho defendants. Mr O'Loughlin said that this a partnership affair. Mr Crump, tho plaintiff's pavtnor, had sold tho«uouso to tho defendants, and there could bo no doubt that tho plaintiff had had some knowledgo of the fact. The learned counsel hold in his hand a documont dated tho 6th February, by whioh Coopor and Crump assigned all their right, title, and interest in tho hotel to tho defendants. Mr Macgrogor said ho should wish tho doouraont in quo»tion to bo handed in, and the attesting witness examined. The hearing of tho caso was now adjourned to give the defendant's counsel timo to subpoeua Mr Davis, the attesting witness. At tho rehearing of tho caso, Mr Oakeß, as his olevk Mr Davis could not attond, said that the salo noto produced was ■ attostod •by his clerk, and that Crump had signod for himself and partner, saying he had a half share in the hotel. Oross-oxainined by Mr Macgrcgor — lie Baw no money paid. It was customary for a member of a firm to sign for. all tho partnors such a dooument as a salo note. Coopor was not present whon tho deed was signod. W. Howloy doposod that ho had casually asked Crump if tho partnership botweoii him and Coopor had ever been dissolv/jd, and the formor said it had not beon. Mr Crump accompanied -him and MoKonnato tho Firo Brigade Hotol, and had locked the door and given them tho key, thus giving them possession. Cross-examined by Mi* Maegrogor — Witnoss had given Crump a bill of exohango for tho purohaso money of the Hotol. Ho considered tho bill ,to bo a valuablo consideration, and as good as monoy. Tho bill was accepted by witnoss and MoKonna. 110 first mot Crump oithor in tho street or at Mr Oakes 1 offloo. Mr Davis had introduced tho business by aayhig Hwtttowynn ft piMo )\q\mlm late, My

Crump said that ho and his partner did not agree together and they wished to soil tho hotel, and said ho (Crump) had paid tho most of tho money for tho house and thorofore it was in fact his. Witness had scon Crump a few days aftor tho deed was oxeoutod but not since. Had never soon an advortisomont in tho West Coast Times about tho house having been sold to him and MclCenna, and signed Coopor and Crump, nor had ho scon a notice in tho next day's paper to tho offect that tho sale had not been effected. Neither had he seen an advertisement in that paper of tho Bth iust. that Mr Reeves would sell tho hotel by publio anotion. Did not know that there was any private understanding between Crump and himself. Mr O'Loughlin at this stage of tho proceedings said he would have nothing more to do with tho caso, as ho considered it was a discreditable ono. P. R. Cooper being ' re-sworn, said ho had borrowed jnonoy from Crump, and had given a deed of partnership as secmity. Witness had repaid tho money, or at all events believed that ho had done so, but his account books in the hands of Mr Davis woidd show exactly how money matters stood between "them. Crump hac after closing tho house as mentioned bogged witness's pardon for what had occurred, and had since left Hokitika. The Magistrate remarked that this was a disreputable case as far as Crump and the defendants were concerned, and he thought it would be well if the public knew who and what Messia Howley and M'Kenna were. His Worship'then gave judgment for the amount claimed and costs. Baxtet v. Parker. — -An action for L 3 6s for work done And materials provided. Plaintiff said the defendant hadjemployecl him to make a table, which, when dono, plaintiff priced at L 3 ss, "which sum defendant refused to pay. Defendant said he had declined to pay the amount asked, because he considered it exorbitant, and offered to give L 2 for the labor and 5b for materials. — Matthews deposed ho was a carpenter and joiner, had seen the table made by the plaintiff, and said it was worth from 30s to 85s. Judgment for 355. Oliver v. Jenkins and Edgar.— An action to recover tho balance of wages duo. Mr (Dukes for tho plaintiff, Mr Campbell for defendant Jenkins. George Oliver said ho was a shipwright and ship carpenter, and had been engaged by tho defendant Jenkins to work at the Maria, on tho Spit. Had worked on tho Petrel, schooner, in December last, and was then paid at the rato of 80s. a day. Tho ourrent rato is now 255. a day, and for overtime one-and-a-half hours aro allowed for every, hour actually employod. Tho £34 12s. 6d. paid him was on account. Mr Jenkins had' acknowledged that the account was correct, but said ho could not pay it, as he had lost by the contract. No agreement had been made as to the amount of wages to bo paid, and no money received until tho job was finished. Had never worked for less than 255. a day since ho had been in Hokitika. — Dougal Campbell said ho had worked for defendants' from the 27th Doc. till tho Maria was launched, on tho 31st January. Tho current rato of wages was 25s for a day of oight hours — namely, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and work dono before and after that timo was charged as over time, every hour of which was paid for as an hour and a half. He had received wages at tho rate of 25s a day from defendants in November last, when tho Maid of Erin was launched. James Gamioll, a ship carpenter, said that he had worked at his trade in Hokitika for tho last ten months. Had omployed men and paid them 25s a day, and had been employed at the same ruto. lie did not know that any ono had worked for a less sum here. George Rshwick, a shipwright, deposed that he had worked aboard the Jiruco andj the Dart, and never received less than 25s a day.— William Jenkins, the defendant, on being sworn, said he had engaged plaintiff, who was very importunate for work at the time, to work at the ♦ Maria. He had engaged about thirty men, and paid each LI a day. Never paid anything for overlime. He had made no agreement with the men, and paid sonic who were not shipwrights at the rate of 15s a day. Witness had told Oliver, when he presented his account, that ho would not pay him more than a pouud a day. The Magistrate here remarked that tho witness had sworn positively, in another case, on the 9th November, that the current rate of wages was 25s a day. George Campbell said he had worked at the Maria as a shipwright, and had received but LI a day, and made' no agreement as to rate. Had been in Hokitika three months. D. Cameron said ho was master of the schooner Tiger. Had paid shipwrights at tho rate of LI a day, and never more than that sum, Recollected Giindlay working for him and , paying him but 20s a day. By Mr Oakes— Witness had

never paid Tulloch 25s a day, but had paid him £1 for about six hours work. Matthew > Edgar said he was a contractor. • Ho was not the defendant in this case. Ho had employed shipwrights to work on tho wharf at from 16s to 22s 6d a day. Last month hd paid at the rate of £1 a day. By the Bench— Witness had never omployed shipwrights to work on ships. Robert Edgar, one of the' defendants, deposed that ho did not know much about tho engagement of the men who worked at tho Maria, as ho did not joiu Mr Jenkins until most of tho men had been engaged. Tho current rato of wages was 25s for a day of eight hours. His Worship remarked that tho defendant Jenkins had about three months ago sworn that 25s was paid for a day's work, and it wos v therefore his duty whim ho engaged men and wished to pay them ata less .rate to make an agreement to that elfect. Ho had not done so in this case, and therefore ' judgment was given in favor of plaintiff for the amount claimed (£ls) aud co3ts. Campbell v. tame. — Tulloch v. same. — As these were precisely similar cases to the former one, judgment was given by consent, for tho amounts claimed. Munchhausen v. Moeller.— An action to recover L 8 12s for furniture. W. Stocks stated that he had been employed by the defendant in a store at Rosstown, aud when settling accounts with him, had said that a debt of L 8 12s was due by witness to Murichhausen, which amount qhe defendant then promised to pay. The defendant having been sworn deposed, that no such promise had ever been given, and all that Stocks had said in the box was utterly false, in fact the latter wjis indebted to him in the sum of LB6, therefore it was not likely that he would undertake to pay Stock's delits. \V. Stocks on being re-examined, admitted that a bill had been given by him to the defendant for the sum of LB6, which he was payiug by monthly instalments. ' The magistrate lectured the witness /for the tergiversation of which he had been guilty, and gave a verdict for the defendant. Williams v. Walker. — An action to recover £15, moiety pf doficionoy in a subscription account. Charles Williams said ho was an liotolkeeper, and had, in conjunction with the defendant, undertaken to collect an amount sufficient to pay tho expenses of tho theatre being built m Rovoll-strcot, instead of in Wold-street. They had not, however, succeeded in collecting as much os they had expected to collect, and ho now wished his coadjutor in tho matter to bear half the amount of tho deficiency. Tho defendant deposed that ho was not ablo to pay so much money on such an account, and was certain that if the

plaintiff had only accompaniecl.him in collecting, there would have been no deficiency. Tho ' Magistrate thought it would be very hard upon >>*■ Mr Williams if tho whole amount of deficiency were saddled on him, and gave a verdict for the amount claimed. Patterson v Easton — An action for £1 lVs 6d

for goods sold nnd dclivorod. Tho plaintiff proved the dolivory of goods to tho defendant. Tho defeucp was that tho s goods woro for a . pwty pf "^n» &H pJ v)\Qty )w4 gone (W»y

oxcopting tho defendant. Vordict for plaintiff, tho amount to bo paid within fourteen days. 801 l v Coppersmith — This was an adjournod actiou, and judgment was now givon for the amount claimed nnd 14s for costs.

Gray v Noes — An action to recover £96 amount of a Bill of Exchange. Mr O'Loughlin appoareel for tho defendant. Tho plaintiff stated ho was in Dunedin when tho bill becamo duo, but had sent it to tho manager of his business, Mr Eoid, to colleot, nnd beliovcd that notice of tho dishonor of tho bill had boon given. William Eoid deposed that ho had asked plaintiff for tho amount of tho bill but ho had refused to pay as thoro was a contra account. By Mr O'Loughlm — It might havo boon ton days aftor dishonor that notico was given to tho defendant. Mr O'Laughlnn in dofiJnco said that notico of dishonor of tho bill should havo boon given to defendant within' throe days thereafter, instead of which it had been proved that ten days were allowed to clapso boforo such notico was sent. The defondant being sworn, proved that notico had not been received uutil ton days after tho bill had booomo due. Tho plaintiff bore asked for an adjournment, as ho asserted ho could provo that right of notico had been waived by a promise to pay having been made subsequent to dnto of dishonor of bill. Case adjourned till to-morrow morning. Valentino v. Godfrey. — An action to recover tho sum of £13, amount of loss on bcof. Mr Macgrogor appeared for tho plaintiff and Mr O'Loughlin for tho dofendant. Tho plaintiff snid ho had engaged, on tho 13th Pecoinbor last, tho dofendant, who is a carrier, to convoy 336 lbs. beof to tho Eight-milo Crcok. Ho agreed to tako it the noxt d ly, and to deliver it by nine o'clock. This, however, ho failed to do, not arriving nt plaintiff's pJiop until 8 or 9 o'clock on tho Friday following, whenths meat was bad, nnd 1154 ft>s. had to bo thrown away. H. Ilill said ho was a storokeopor, and had engaged Godfrey to take somo stores to the Auckland rush on tho 13th Decembor last, and ho agreed to b 6 thoro by 12 o'clock on that day. Valontino's meat and his goods mado lip a load. George Godfrey, tho defendant, deposed that plaintiff- had called on him on tho, 13th of Decembor, nnd nsked him to tako somo moat to tho Eight-mile, but do-* feudant told him ho could not bo bound to time, 'and would tako it when ho was going that way with' other things. Ho had ngreed to send somo articles to Mr Hill by a specified timo, and tlieso ho had forwnrdod, rotuining tho balanco of tho goods until ho was going to the Auckland Rush . Ho had nover mado any agreement with the plaintiff. Mary Ann Godfrey, the defendant's wifo, said that plaintiff hacl called wheu her husband was out, and said that ho wanted some beef taken to tho Eight-mile. She then told him her husband was busy aboard tho Maid of tho Yarra, and said that ho bad better gfct a dray somewhere else. Judgment for tho defendant with costs.

Patterson v. Bailey, — An. notion for L 3 10s, for goods sold nnd delivered. Judgment by default. . | JThere were eleven cases in which neithor plaintiffs nov defendants appeared.

Tho Court adjourned till to-morrotv morning ntt 11 o'clock.