RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 337, 22 October 1866, Page 1 (Supplement)

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before G.G. FitzGcraW, Esq., R.M.)

Thursday, Octoher IS. Drvnkentvess. — John West was charged with this offence, nnd fined os, or in default, 24 hours' imprisonment. Disobedience to a Summons. — John Nankervis wa^ charged with disobeying a summons issued by the Resident Magistrate at Christchurch, "for deserting his child. His Worship remanded the pri-. soner to Christchurch ; but would admit him to bail, himself in L2O, and two sureties in LlO each. Prisoner to appear at Christchurch on the 27th instant. Larceny. — William Paul was charged •with stealing a butcher's tray. The charge was clearly brought home to the prisoner, and he Avas sentenced to 1 4 days' imprisonment, with hard labor.

cm!, cases. South v. Ouyon. — Claim L 9 8s for professional services. Judgment for plaintiff for full amount claimed, and costs. Antonio v. Hough ton. — This was an adjourned case. Mr. Home addressed the Court on behalf of the plaintiff, followed by Mr Rees for the defendant. His Worship reserved judgment till this morning. Louisson v Moir. — Mr South applied for a re-hearing of, this case, .which Mr Bees opposed. His Worship decided to grant the re-hearing. Fraher v. Egan. — This was an action to recover the sum of LIOO, alleged balance of account for goods sold and delivered. The defendant .filed a set-off in excess of the plaintiff's claim. Mr Button for plaintiff, and Mr Rees for defendant. An argument was raised upon the admission of the set-off, and after hearing counsel his Worship decided that lie could not entertain the same. This case occupied the Court for a considerable time, owing to the-accounts produced being somewhat lengthy and complicated, and his Worship reserved judgment till this morning. Gordon v. Cameron and Price. — In this case there was no appearance of defendants, and judgment was accordingly given for plaintiff, for amount claimed and costs. Brown v. Jackson. — No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff' for amount claimed and costs. Klein v. Mendelsson. — This was an action brought to- recover the sum of L7B, being the-alleged value of certain jewellery entrusted by plaintiff to one Edward Rich, for the purpose qf being sold. J. P. Klein being called, deposed that he saw i an advertisement in the West Coast Times, to the 'effect that certain jewellery left by one Edward Rich, in his hands as a pledge, would be sold, &c. Rich was in the habit of leaving a box containing jewellery at the witness' house. He was indebted tj the witness in about the sum of L6O. The goods exposed by Rich for sale were the property cf witness. Rich was hawking same on commission ; he believed that the box at defendant's place contained the jewellery, or some of it, that Rich had received from him. By Mr Button — Witness would not swear that the box referred to in the advertisement contained jewellery, but he believed it did. He had given Mr Rich full power to dispose of the goods. Mr Hyman was then called, and stated that he was acquainted with Rich, and had at various times seen the jewellery in that person's possession. He had seen some of the-jewellery in defendant's possession ; he could not swear tliat they had beeif supplied by Klein. James A. N. Turner also deposed that he was present, and that Rich was to sell on commission. By Mr Button — Witness understood, from the general tenor of the instructions, that Rich had full power to sell the goods on any terms he liked. The defendant was then called, and stated that Mr Rich (an absentee), had left the jewellery with him as security for repayment of money due by him to witness. By Mr Button — He had received a writ of foreign attachment respecting the articles contained in the box. He produced same. Mr Button then addressed the Court, pointing out that the plaintiff had been unable to describe the precise contents of the box, and that the writ itself was a sufficient answer to the action, and entitled the defendant to a verdict. The plaintiff was nonsuited. Anderson and Co. v. Shealer. — This was an action to recover the value of certain goods, shipped in good condition in the Lady Darling. Mr Button for plaintiffs. The bills of lading were produced, and fiom the evidence it appeared that the goods were completely destroy ed, nnd totally unsaleable when landed "at Hokitika. The defendant was master of the Lady Darling. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed and costs. Forsyth 6c Co. v. Shealer. — This was a similar action to the former, and judgment was given for plaintiffs for amount claimed and costs. Evans v. Shealer. — This action was for short delivery and goods damaged. At the request of Mr Button, who appeared for the plaintiff, the case was adjourned till Tuesdaj next. Dodd v. Camerun. — No appearance of plaintiff or defendant. Case dismissed. The Court then adjourned to Friday morning, at 11 o'clock.

Friday, October 19. AssAULt. — Julia Burke was charged with this offence, but the complainant not appearing, the information was dismissed. Bbeach of KKLii;r Ordinance. — The information was dismisssed, owing to the non-appearance of the complainant. Larceny. — Henry dimming and Thos. Carney were brought up on remand from the 10th instant, when Mr Brohain stated that he was unable to produce any additional evidence, and the prisoner.-, were discharged. Breach of Police Ordinance. —John M'Gorman was charged with a breach of this ordinance. After hearing the evidence, his Worship dismissed the information. Breach of Public-house Ordinance. — Robert Bensusan was charged by the police with selling spirituous liquors without having a license. It appeared that, he had made application for a license, which had been granted but not issued, and that he had sent the money to the Clerk to the Warden's Court, Hokitika, who. on receipt of the amount wrote word to the effect that Bensusan could not get the, license until he had first obtained a lease of the Maori ground, on which his premises were shunted, from the Native Commissioner. Not tiking any further steps, and being under the impression that his Jicense had been v dnry issued he had con-

tinued to sell spirituous liquors. His Worship saifl that he would dismiss the case, and order the defendant to procure his license, as ho was not at liberty to opi>n. his hotel until he was in possession of the same.

civil cases.

Louisson v. Moir.— The re-hearing of this case took place yesterday morning. Mr South for plaintiff, Mr Rees for defendant. Charles Louisson, the plaintiff deposed, that he was a merchant, residing and carrying on business at Hokitika. The bill of exchange now shown to him was drawn by Mr Moir, tho defendant. The bill fell due on Sunday, {he 30th

ultimo, and was presentable by t;. c custom of merchants, on the Monday. On -Monday he gave defendant a written notice of the non-payment of the bill ; he then saw Mr Jones, the acceptor of the bill, who informed him that he (Jones) had seen tho defendant in this action upon the subject of the bill, and that they had determined to arrange the matter. Witness saw defendant about 1 the bill /and he said "I wish you would 'sue .me on the bill, in a friendly way, so that I might sue Jones." Defendant also led him to believe that he was going to ,'\my the bill. By Mr Rees — Witness would not undertake to swear positively whether -it was on the Saturday or the Monday that he presented tho bill. It was on one of those days. He had agreed with defendant as much as with Mr Jones, that he would hold the bill ,over for a couple of days. When witness next met defendant, he (defendant) requested him to sue on the bill, so that it might he known generally that he (defendant) had beeti Compelled to pay it. Henry Jones, being sworn, said that he was the acceptor of the bill, lie saw defendant upon the subject of the bill on Tuesday, the 2nd inst- The bill was still unpaid. By Mr Rees — When he saw defendant, he told witness that he had received notice of dishonor frum plaintiff, and asked witness what he purposed doing. It was settled that some attempt at an arrangement shou'd' be made' by witness. Defendant acknowledge;] receipt of the notice of dishonor, and said " that he believed lie would have to pay it." — Winter, being sworn, said that he remembered the 27th ultimo, lie did nut think that that the bill shown to him had been presented for payment on that dato. It might have been presented on the Monday, but even if it had it would not have been paid, as that was not the pay-day, Mr Rees, in addressing the Court for the defence, remarked that he would not again place the defendant in the box, b"ut v.ould rest his case on the grounds particularised at the former hearing. Mr South then followed, and his Worship intimated that he would give judgment this (Saturday) morning. Antonio v, Iloughton. — His Worship delivered judgment this morning, and directed a non-suit to be recorded, 'as he was of opinion that the plaintiff had failed in [establishing the " ownership " of the defendant. i

Frahor v. Egan. — His Worship also gave judgment in this case for the plaintiff in the sum of L 56 13.-. 7d, and costs. x

Johnson and Co. v. Campbell. — Judgment by consent was entered for the plain-, tiff, in the sum L 29 Is. > The Court was then adjourned till 11 a.m. the following day (Saturday).