K.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 3, Issue 881, 23 September 1881, Page 2

K.M. COURT.

MASTEIi'MN, THURSDAY,

[Before H, S.Wardell, Esfj.'.R.M.l

6. H. Sliute v W. Walker.—Larceny of a cross-cut saw.

The prosecutor said hepurohased the flaw from Mr fliipkius. He could hot identify the saw from personal knowledge, as he was laid up, in bed at the time he procured it. It was the only' iarr Hopkins possessed, and it was he believed the one now ih : oourfc.

Defendant stated that Hopkins' saw wiw a jugged, tooth one. and differed from the one produced in Court.. , T. W. Shute, next called, asked for his expenses, •

The Court-Ul have no doubt your son will pay yuurexpenses. Witness deposed that on the 18th or 19th of March he received a saw from Hopkins, and winked it with him.' The Buw they were working with was one which Hopkins had previously lost. Hopkins, to his knowledge never had more than one saw,; On the 21st he found tht saw gone from the place where he left it. He did not know that Hopkins had sold a saw to his son, He thought he. could swear to the identity of the'saw produced. It was the one to the best of his belief. In answer to the Court—Prosecutor said the bill, produced, in which'Hopkins charged him 15s for the saw was signed by Hopkins at Hawera,

The Court— How is it then that the datouf the settlement is March 18th, a time when Hopkins was'in the Wairarapul John Jackson deposed that he was a contractor, working at Woodlands,. The accusud cinie there to work and brought a crosscut saw with him. He said that he had got the saw from William Green, in exchange for another. He identified the saw in Court as the one produced, Defendant yesterday morning applied to him for the saw, but witness would not {five it up, ub the prosecutor had claimed it. The accused said he bought the saw a year ago from William Hopkins, He told Jackson that he got it from Green because he did not want everybody to know how he became possessed of it, The Court sentenced the accused to 28 duys imprisonment with hard labor. A SCHOOLMA6TEH IN TROUBLE,

Barbara Johnstone v. Lawrence John-stone.-Air Bunny for the applicant, who asked for an order protecting her earnings; also for her husband to contribute towards the support of three young children, and that the custody of the same should remain in the hands of the applicant. The ground of ihe application was that the respondent had subjected the applicant to cruelty. The defendant expressed himself to be willing for the order to be made, excepting as regarded the custody of the children. He objected to this on the pound that the applicant was insane.

Tlie Court—Have you taken steps to ascertain that she is insane.

Defendant-I have taken steps, but not completed them.

The Court then had a private conference with the witness on the subject of the alleged insanity of his wife, after which it was arranged that the order should be made, and the point of the custody of the children should be settled in chambers,

' A. Johnson v. B. Braggins (judgment summons)— Debt £2 lCs,

Defendant stated he had a large family to keep, and had therefore been unable to satisfy the judgment, as it took all he could earn to support them. The plaintiff stated that he had offered to accept 5s a month, or to take the amount out in labor, hut defendant had not accepted either offer,

*His Worship said lie would make an order for defendant to pay 5s a week on the understanding that he could do a day's work m each week in lieu of the money, the work to be done as platntiff desired.

Chamberlain Bros. v. S. E. Gappev— Claim for refund of £U 8s paid to defendant as commission on certain flour, Mr Bunny for plaintiff, defendant being his own lawyer. Tlio asiiiiriisiiim the following grounds. When Mr Capper sold ihe Steam Flour mill to Messu Chamberlain Bros, he had a quantity of wheat to "rind for Mr D. Donald, and wan to «e! from that gentleman 5 per cent, for sellini; the flour which was produced therefrom. Plaintiffs bad |'aid £l4 8* to the defendant, bein« the amount of nommission on 16 tons at £lB per ton—the amount sold—but when the account for the amount was sent to Mr Do;iald, he destined to pay it, as he found tbii puiclnuer himself for the flour. .Plaintiffs therefore now sued Mr Gapper for a refund of the amount paid lum as commission.

The difjiuiaut claimed that ho was to have ihe commission whether he or Mr Donald sold ii, and that as the plaintiffs hud taken tho matter over when purchasing the properly nutt contents of the mill they could not now claim a refund of the ammmt which had been paid him. The Court explained that there being no coi.trajl between Messrs Chamberlain and Donald they could not sue him for the commission.' All they emild do was to recover from Mr Gapper and let Mr Gappei'fall buck on Mr Donald,

Tho defendant stated (and it was admitted by plaintiffs) that he had asked them to bring the matter before the Court for settlement long ago, when all the parties necessary as witnesses were in the place. Now it would be a difficult matter to prove a case, as the affair occurred four years ago. Tho Court said it was greatly to be regretted that the case had been left over so long, as Mr Gapper's case against Donald would be greatly prejudiced by his witnesses not being able to trust their memories so far back on a subject that did not greatly concern them. This however, did not interfere with plantiffV, right to recover, and judgment would be entered for them,

G. Bemieltv. Thomas Wagg-Debt £5, No appearance of either party. Charles Oheymol v W. Scale.-Olaim £l77sßd, being the amount of a judgr nient against Thomas Bennett, which was nut satisfied through the alleged neglect of defendant *s balifT, in not selling the goods and chattels of the said Thomas Bonnett with sufficient promptitude, thereby allowing him time to file his schedule, Mr Beard acted, for plaintiffs solicitors, (Messrs Olliver, Holland, and Brown), and Mr Bunny for defendant, The defendant's evidence was to the effect that on the Ist of June last he received two distress warrants, one against Bennett and Potts, at the suit of Williams and Barker for some £BO, and another for 117 7s Bd, at the instance of Mr Oheymol, against Thomas Bennett, He. received both in the same envelope, and ai the one for the larger amount had been first applied for, he seized the machinery, and stock-in-trade of the firm, and also the furniture of Thomas Bennett as a partner, on the 4th of June. It was withdrawn on the 10th, when he immediately seized tho goods' of Thomas Boonett on the second warrant. Bad advertised the goods for sale in the Wairarapa Daily twice. On the 15th he received a warrant.from the Registrar of the Supreme C uirt, stating that Bennett had tiled his schedule. He therefore withdrew from the premises. Bad reoeived a telegram on the 7th of July

telling him not t to advertise the gbdda and another on the 9fch, requesting to"wl rb aonu ai possible, and that he would be held responsible for any delay, « ' Mr Bunny raised the objection that ths warrant under '"whiolf the bailiff' aoted should be in Court, but it was found to be in Wellington.' Mr Beard proved the warrant had/been a formal one by examining the defendant 'OH it/:'- "' •"• '-'-'r ' '" ' Y':; 1 : ,''i Charles Cheymol, the plaintiff, deposed hi had supplied Mr Bennett with win« and spirits; Had aued him and Utyn but execution. Mr Bennett had asked him t» allow a few day's respite,'and hentf4b£ reason of his sending the He regarded him, however,* a^jflßHH In answer to tar! Bunny.—Had Mr Bennett an LO.ft&or. the amount ef tho dkim: hut. n»k WnillA lie nwfld Ben-

nett money, but to oblige .him in ! som way. The 1.0.U was to ha'rej been re turned to him (witnaii). -jr. jl' . This oonoluded the esse. "■" j Mr BuHRy submitted that he had no case to answer, and held that although Mr Beard had gained evidence of the existence of the warrant, still it was necessary to have the document itself in Court, as it might be informal, Mr Beard argued that there was a cast to answer, arid stated that he had only received tre papers connected with the case the evening before, and thought the warrant would, hare been at the Court.

His Worship did not think ths document really neoossary to the cass, but thought it ought to hart been furnished. Mr Beard asked for an adjournment, but Mr Bunny held that an adjournment could not be granted after the caie had closed.

His Worship said he recogniaid that this case was rather an exceptional one, and would hare adjourned it if he had power to do so, as a nonsuit would practically prevent any further steps being taken in the matter by plaintiff, as the three months in which to take action had expired. Plaintiff neniuited with cuts.

The cases Hereock v R. Meredith, and Johnstone r Johnstone, were adjourned to 9 o'clock this morning, both haring baitt partially heard.

Ingram v Chincban.—Breach of Borough by-laws. Dismissed; no neglwt bairn; shown,

W. A. P. Sutton v Moore.—Breaah of Scab Act. Adjourned to next sitting. Moore v Dorset.—Breach of Rabbit Act. Adjourned. .