Magistrate’s Court.
Thursday, February 13. -i Before Major Keddell, S.M. SUPPLYING LIQUOR TO PROHIBITED PHRSONS. Robert Jackson was charged With suppljing liquor to George Johnson and Thomas Hogan, both prohibited persons. ■ Mr Hamilton appeared for defendant and asked for an adjournment, as a witness for defendant was not present. Constable Christie said one of'the witnesses for the prosecution might not be available next Court day. He asked that the case go on. Henry George Tull, police constable stationed at Waimate, sworn, said he was standing at the Empire Hotel corner, Queen street. He saw Thomas Hogan and George Johnston go to the Criterion Hotel right-of-way. Defendant followed them, carrying something under his arm: Jackson went into the stable With Hogan, and they remained there awhile, when Hogan came out and Johnston went in. Each stood for about two minutes watching up and down the right-of-way. Witness was behind the hedge on the right hand side of Shearman street, where ho commanded a view of '-the right-of-way. Cross-examined by Mr Havniiton : Either of the men might have seen him if bo had looked round when witness was on the Queen street end of the right-of-way. Ha waht round the block into Shearman street when the men went out of his sight into the stable. Maigaret Campbell, barmaid at the Criterion Hotel, knew defendant Jackson, who worked at the hotel, Knew Constable Tull. Saw him near the right-of-way on the 3rd about five or six o’clock. Jackson came in shortly after and bought a bottle of draught beer. Gave him a drink and lent him a glass. Told him to bo careful. They had had a quarrel the day before, and this was why she said this. He was not in the habit of getting beer at six o’clock, but he usually got a bottle of beer wheu he went homo at eight o’clock. To Mr Hamilton: Jackson was engaged by the house for milking and gardening. He would be milking about the time stated. He was very deaf, aud one had to call out very loudly to make him understand. When she said “ Be careful/’ m?ant to say that he should be careful what he said about her. To the Bench: Did not know Johnston by sight, but knew Hogan. Andrew Christie, police constable stationed at Waimate, produced the originals of orders against Hogan and Johnston. Gn the 3rd instant Constable Tull reported seeing the two prohibited men in the right-of-way. Went round there and saw thorn standing at the Shearman street end. Wont with the constable into the stable and found two beer bottles, one containing a little fresh beer and the other a little which was stale. Mr Hamilton submitted that the evidence before the Court did not establish the case; it did not show more than that they into the stable and came out again. The evidence of finding two bottles io the stable did not show that they had the beer. Jackson was seen carrying something to the stable, but there was nothing to show that he did not drink the beer himself. The evidence only showed that the prohibited men spoke to Jackson, and as he was very deaf anything they said must have been audible to the constable. The Bench said the evidence was one cf strong suspicion, but it was -insufficient to convict on. It had to bt3 proved that the liquov was procured for the men and that they drank it wheu it was bought. The information ■would b» dismissed. FAILING TO CLEAR GORSE.
County E ngineer v. H W. Dtt’in. Mr Hamilton for plaintiff, Mr Clement for defendant. Mr Hamilton said that in accordance with section 135 of the Public Works Act, an order to clear the obstruction was served in August, but had not yet been complied with. Charles Edward Bremner, engineer far Waimate County Council, produced the minute book of the Council showing that, in accordance with the Act, an order had been issued to Dunn and others to clear the gorse and other obstructions from the sections occupied by them. Witness produced a plan showing the sections referred to and the sections on which they abut. Had inspected the roads and found the worse had io some n cases bee chopped down, but not cleared in accordance with the Act, and in some not touched. The gorse, he assumed, had spread from the fences on defendant’s itud. Charles Hocbs, employed by the Waimate County Council, knew Mr Dunn’s land. Inspected it on the 10th January with Mr Bromner and found a lot-of gorse on the road near Mr Dunn’s house, some of it partly cut down and some not touched. Measured , it at one place; there was no hedge there, but inside on lb# land it was all covered with gorse. ( The defence was that the gorse had j been cut down where Mr Dunn Was; liable, and that part where the road was not formed was coveted with: natural growth, for which it tvas claimed he was not liable. i Henry William Dunn, sworn, said he bad had the gorse cut down retdy i to be ploughed, in, but be could not i get.any men to tackle the job, as it would be too hard on the horses. Had not out any down since he received the notice. ,V , To Mr Hamilton : Mr Murphy, a neighbour, had cleared the gorse on his frontage according to notice. _ To Mr Clement: Where Murphy cleared defendant had no gorse hedge. Mr Clement submitted that ■ the defendant had no need to clear the road last mentioned, as it was. not formed, and he had a stake aiud wire ; fence only. - ', Mr Hamilton pointed out that where a man’s' laud was overgrown with gorse ’ and the road also, and absol-' ute pebof wa# reqared that .the gorse 'spread from the .land. tbe sections/6f the Act dealing with this nuLahce were inoperative. ' The Magistrate-reserved his decision ‘till next Court 1 day. ( ■ civn. OASB3. _ , . Arthui; Jones fthA .Cc, v.
Joseph Calvert v. W. Manchester, claim £3 7a 6d. Mr Clement for defendant, who bad paid £2 15s into Court as full settlement. Plaintiff declined to accept this as fall settlement. r Being sworn, he said defendant bad ashed him to cook for the catup on the 28th July, riaid he would not go under 15s per week, and eefendant said he was to go uut and they would not quarrel about the pay, Worked fourteen weeks and one day. Got £7 part pay, and no was made of the weekly sum. Wont for another payment, and •’then defendant said John Wright objected to his getting 15s per week. Told him that he was engaged by defendant, and knew nothing about anyone else. Got £5, and had got no more since. Mr Manchester said he was' not going to give mos 3 than 12s per week. Then plaintiff took action to recover. To Mr Clement: When paying the £5 Mr Manchester said nothing about the weekly wage-; he did not mention it till the work was finished. There was no one present when the first conversation took place. To the Bench : Knew that Manchester had been giving lower wages ; this was why he told him ho would not go under 15s. To Mr Clement: Had worked for, him before as cook, being paid 1&j. This last was a plough camp. He cooked for four men. There was no mention that if there were sit men the wages would be 15s. Had worked for Mr Bitohener and Mr Doughs for 15s for four men; therefore asked the same, and he was not told ho could not get it. William Manchester, sWorn, said the plaintiff had several times worked for him, the wages being 12s. Expected to have six teams, and oxoected, to pay the cook accordingly. He had never asked more money before. At the first payment of £7 no conversation took place, but on the second payment he asked £7 and witnessdeclined to give it, i?it said ha would see Wright, his partner in the contract, and Wright declined. To save trouble witness offered to give him 13s 6d per week, but he said his wife was not satisfied, and he declined to take anything less than 15s. The Bench said plaintiff was foolish not to take the £2 15s, as he advised, as it was a case of on# man s word against another’s. Now ho would be awarded this eum, but out of it he would have to pay £1 Is solicitor s fee and 6s costs. , O’Connor and London v. John Moore and eon, claim £24. Mr Clement for plaintiffs, Mr Hamilton for defendants, who pleaded not indebted. 1 The case, as stated by Mr Clement, was for the recovery of a trap, a pair of wheels and lamps, the property of the estate of the late Nicholas Wall, for whom the plaintiffs were trustees. It had been advertised that tradesmen should have no dealings with the assignor, and the defendants had also been warned by word of mouth. The assignor had sold the goods to defendants after this. They were claimed, and the junior defendant refused to give them up without the consent of his father. He afterwards refused to give up possession. _ John O'Ccnnor, sworn, said that with the othep trustee he had administered the estate of the late Nicholas Wall without the interference of the ■ assignor, Mrs Wall, who had no authority to dispose of any goods from the estate. Heard of the sale to Moore, which was not done with his authority. _ After the luncheon adjournment Mr O'Connor’s examination w«s continued. Ha said be might have given £2O for the trap had he wanted it, not otherwise. William Hobson Lundon, the second trustee, gave confirmatory evidence. Saw Mr Moore with reference to the sale of the trap and other articles. He showed a receipt signed • Fanny Wall,’ and witness returned it to him with the remark that it was not worth the paper it was written on. He said he would like to see Mrs Wall. Ho did so, but told him on Saturday that he could get no satisfaction from Mrs Wall. Gave him till the Monday to see bis father, as he desired to do, but when be did so he declined to give back the articles. Then placed the matter in the solicitor’s hands. To Mr Hamilton; Had warned Moore not to buy anything from Mrs Wall some ten days before. Believed he did offer tc return the trap if the purchase money were returned. William Allan, wheelwright, valued the trap at £l6 in March and the wheels at £3, but did not value the harness. Did not notice nails driven in the shafts to act as keepers. This migh? depreciate the value of the trap if the nails were badly placed. Matthew Wall, son of the late Nicholas Wall, know, the trap referred to. It. had been sold to Moore and Son, in whose yard witness had since seen it. Heard Mr Moore offer to give back the trap to Mr London if he gave ; him £6. Ha went and aaked witness J mother to give back the money, but' she refused. John Wm. Freeman, livery stable proprietor, knew the trap referred to. Valued it at £lB. Valued the wheels ; at from £3 to £4 and the harness; about £2. Mr Wall bought the trap for £52 about ten years ago. . ■ To Mr Hamilton; Did not examine it with a view to valuing it. _ This was the case for the plaintiffs. Mr Hamilton asked that the name : of Mr Moore senior be struck out of the summons. Before bringing him to Court evidence of his connection with the case should have been pro-; cured. Mr Moore junior bought the trap under the belief that it was her own property, giving £6. Fanny Wall, widow of the late Nicholas Wall, recognised the receipt ; produced as one given by her to Mr Mootoe. The’rap sold was her property,. and, was given her by her husband fourteen years ago. She sold the 'trap to Mr ■Moore, receiving the price she asked. Her husband would never lend the trap unless after asking her. ■ She was' never asked by the trustees whether the trap Was hers or not. When she signed the deed hiakipg over the property to trusties she was not aware what she was signing. Baid ro the trustees that the trap would be as well sold as lying rotting there, and they said she had belter keep it. ’ . To Mr Hamilton: Thought the trustees knew jfr was her trap,' and dil riot need telling. . * ' ■ John Moore, jam, .deposed to buying the trap, which Mr? Wall said w*. n*r *vn property, and given her by her late-husband. Mr Lundon afterwards flama and.oskei him to return the napand he‘refused unless the money were refunded.' .Thought £8 was thp outside, value of thefofc,‘Wheels and harness. Only'bought at? to sell sgaltf* r His ’ to -dc). with the MttMl
fa,her on the subject. His father had no interest in the Waimate branch. Did not promise to go at)d see Mr Lundon on the Monday night. The trustees did not tell him not to have dealings with -Mrs Wall, but simply that they would not be liable. J. Cunningham, coach-builder, Gamaru, deposed to valuing the trap at from £8 ’o £l3. It was in vary bad repair. Th# wheel* were worth £1 apiece. _ . George Dash, wheelwright, Waimate, knew the trap in question. Saw it that day, ‘and valued it at £lO, or at auction £B. The spare wheels were worth about 25s,and the harness seemed worth very little. * . Mr Hamilton submitted that the 'trustees must prove that the goods were included in the deed, which was a voluntary one and not registered, and therefore void as against creditors. As a voluntary deed Mrs Wall had power to revoke it, and she had evidently done so as far as the goods were concerned. Again, the notice appearing in the newspaper was no use unless, it was proved that it referred to this particular property-. It was not right that the-defendants should be deprived of tiie trap with-no chance of recovering the money. Mr Clement submitted that the deed was a solemn and valid one, and could not be revoked at pleasure. The only argument of any worth was that the trap was given her by her husband. This was discounted by tbo fact that tire late Mr Wall paid for all repairs. The advertisement was only put iu to show that no precaution had been neglected to guard the public. Besides this, a specific warning bud been given the younger Moore, on whom, if the elder were struck on* - ..-costs should fail. It was. ho submitted, ihe duty of the Court, to uphold the trustees in every w.y. so as to protect both assignor and her family from any acts she might commit in regard to the property. Unless it. was proved she had an independent right to iho goods they must, be returned. To ) damages asked (£2) wore not excessive for the loss of the use of tbo goods and the peril of losing o'- her goods in the same manner.
The Court reserved its decision. The C mrfc sat to h*ar old age pension claims. One application was refused. Two now full pensions were granted. The Court renewed fifteen pendens at £lB, two at £l7, two at, £l6, one at £ls, one at £l4, three at £l3, one at £ll, and two at £9.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WDA19020215.2.15
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume IV, Issue 166, 15 February 1902, Page 3
Word count
Tapeke kupu
2,602Magistrate’s Court. Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume IV, Issue 166, 15 February 1902, Page 3
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.