R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 5, Issue 1398, 7 June 1883, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

CARTERTON—WEDNESDAY. I Before H, S, Wakdell, R.M., and B. Boys, J.P.] • Police v. Drumgoold—Drunk on the public highway;. Constable Darby said he was not aware of any previous offence. Fined ss. Same r. Whyte.—Allowing his chimney to catch fire contrary to tlie by-laws of the Carterton Town Board. Fined £l.'

Same v. Moriavfcy —Same offence. Fined i>l. .

Buckeridge v. Grant's Trustees.— Claim £l3 4s for hire of horse and cart a|i j2s per diem. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff,' Mr Beard for defendants. The evidence was of a mos.t contradictory nature. Judgment for defendant. Detective Chrystal asked permission to withdraw the original informations laid against Eli, Thomas, and Joseph Strawbridge for larceny, and proceed on those laid by J}im accusing fhe same men with receiving certain, goods, knowing them to have been stolen. The original informations were then withdrawn, and Thomas Strawbridge was arraigned for receiving one. piece of flannel, of the value of £2, the gooi|s qf George Gait]erier ? lately stolen by a certain person, w|io.sp iiame is unknown, from his store, Af ell knowing the same tp have been stqlen. Mr W. G. Beard said he appeared with Mr Sandilands on hehalf of the acpnsed, ftnd would ask that the hearing of the case be remanded to & future date, that would meet the convenience of the Court—say, Friday or Saturday. He would point ou*; to the Court that the original informations had been withdrawn and fresh substituted. They had therefore had no fhp tq IPIPP |heir defenco to meet so serious & charge, and he would therefore submit that the application was a reasonable one. He would ask that the adjourned hearing should take place at as early a date as po#lo, After some discussion between the Bench and oounsq], the adjourned hearing was fixed for 10 o'clock oh Friday morning. Eli Strawbridge was then arraigned on a similar charge as regarded a pair of hoots valued at 9s. Adjourned to same date.

Joseph- Strawbridge was then arraigned on a similar charge as regarded a pair of corsets value 5s 9d. Adjourned to same date. Mr Sandilands applied for bail, and after some conversation the, Bench fixed bail for each of the accused at pepsqiifil security of £IOO, and bondsmen, two of fifty pounds eacl), qr one of £IOO, Bail was provided in each case,

MASTERTON—THURSDAY,

(Before H. S. Wardell, R.M.)

Neilsen v Pond.—Wages die., £2B ss, Defendant admitted the claim, but said he could not satisfy,'lit till he succeeded in selling 12,000 bricks, which he had at his kiln. Judgment for amount and costs, Kolleher v Broadbent—Rent £2. In this case plaintiff gave notice to defendant that if he did not leave his house by a certain date, ho would raise his rent from 9a tQ JjjQs pep week, The claim was based on two weeks at 20s.

The Court advised the plaintiff to take 18s and settle the case privately, and the plaintiff accepted- the suggestion,

; J. D. Thompson v Nelson—Debt if) for Bixty fowls, a barrel of washing soda, pd some ?inc ani} chaff. Mr Beard for defendant contended tiat the items wero included in the valuation of the stock-in-trade taken over , 1 The plaintiff put in a letter in which the defendant admitted the olaim as a separate one, but asked for time. ; Mr Beard, on this letter being produced, withdrew from the oase, as his client had not informed him of the existence of, such a document.

. The Court gave judgment for £3lss and costs, that being amount admitted by defendant. , .

Dalrymple v McKillop 'and Montgomery.—Commission on sale of lease U.

Mr ..Beard, for McKillop, pleaded that plaintiff was not instructed to act for his client. Plaintiff deposed that on' May 3rd he was instructed to sell a lease of 95 acres by Mr Mortgomery, for the sum of £l5O, commission on sale to be £lO, Fe was subsequently instructed to take £lO or £2O less, He spoke to Mr Hessey as a likely man to purchase the lease. Mr. He&ey- accompanied Mm to see the land, On the following day he made/an'offer'to Mr Montgomery on the part of Hessey:, The parties. interested met at : the) | Club Hotel, when it was agreed that £BO should be offered for the lease. The | lease was in the name of William ' McKillop, and it was arranged to meet I subsequent meeting McKillopjwas present and signed an agreement'to sell' at £BO. McKillop and Mont* gomery wanted Hessey to'pay his. commission, but Hessey declined to do this. Montgomery said lie had ; no interest in the lease and wouldnotpay him, and McKillop refused to pay on the ground that he had not employed him. •-

To Mr Beard: He only saw McKillop when the agreement was signed, He did not know that McKillop was the . principal. The purchase was from McKillop only, Montgomery said he must have the spoke more than once of McKillop as his partner. Witness spoke, to Montgommery in the first place' about a paddock he wanted for a' horae which preceded the talk about the lease of the 95 acres,

John Hessey, farmer, Upper Plain, cmobomted the evidence of the plaintiff with reference to ; meeting defendannts,and making arrangements,for the purchase of the lease. Montgomery asked witness who should pay commission, and he replied, the person who engaged plaintiff. Montgomery told witness distinctly that he was' with McKillop. Cross-examined by Mr Bealßid not know till the lease was that Montgomery had 'no interest in the place, Chaa, Anketell deposed that ilont-. gomery spoke to him about selling the lease. He told the witness that McKillop had nothing to do with' it, | and that he was the party to deal with. ■' V

This was the case for plaintiff. .. Mr Beard submitted that there was no evidence to connect Montgomery with the case, but His Worship maintained that there was.

John Montgomery deposed that lie saw Dalrymple, who asked him if lie had a small paddock in Masterton, said he was giving up one of Mr Renall's, but if he wanted a larger one,, he thought McKillop might let him have one. Told him the amount would be £l5O, but had no power to engage him, and that lie would ljays to spp McKillop. With reference to Anketslj he also told him that he would have to see McKillop, but this was wit!) reference to a lioijse and not to tjie paddock. Aqkefie]} said McKjjjqp ha'd given him first offer of tjie paddqck, and hopec} jjewoi||fi be. aljle to gef about 20 acpes qf;(;. 4 few he saw Hessey Dalrymple, who asked hitr) tq speak to MgKillop. Witness sp he HI him. He<|i<} so, iffld ijcKillop he would Jiffve i|qtj)ing tp (]g witjnf. McKillop <w4 ftgVPed w}t(i Hessey. Wag ppeseDt wW tjie tyjr'ep: ment was drawn gut, but had nothing to do with it, except to pign as; wit: ness. Nothing was said between hiffl and Dalrymple with regard to" oom. mission,

By plaintifiMJid not agree to pay £lO if lease was sol I for £l5O. Did not remember Dalrvmple saying lie would charge 5 per cent. W. McKillop deposed he had sold a place tq Mr Hessey, Never had afyrthing to say to Dalryrapl# with reference to selling the place,

The Court said it had no hesitation in giving judgment against J, Mont, gomery for amount and costs £i 15s, and witnesses expenses 30s. D. Donald r M. Maxton—Claim £5 5s for one tenor horn, the property of the Masterton Volunteer Corps. Mr Beard for plaintiff, Mr Bunny for defendant,

Mr Board opened the case stating that defendant had received the instrnment for the purpose of playing in the Volunteer Band, but which he now refused to deliver up. not having joined the force under the new regul® tions, and asked the Court to make M order compelling him to hand the said instrument , over to the comanding officer of the Masterton Volunteers, who, 'according to the aot of 1881, was entitled to the {PPfe Mr Buniiy c|iitenM thftt terton Volunteers wero not swora'in until January last, therefore the Aot of 1881 did not come into force with vaspecfc to them until that time, and the property of the Corps prior'to the new enrollment, /lid not pass to the commanding officer of the new Company. The Court ruled against Mr Bunny's argument. M. Maxton sworn, said he was lately a member of the Masterton Volunteer Band, being enrolled a member of the company. Did not have charge of any instrument!). Had a sfix : horn. Did not have it given tioliim'tiy any ot' the Volunteer (3oji tlje instrument ffom Mr Eoydhouse. Played it in the while in the Company at the practices and on other occasions; Had received ' a notice from Captain Donald to give up the instrument. To Mr Bunny; oad the instrument in my possession for sqine tiffioMqrg joining the Corps. No ins|rtin)cnt? were handed out to the Baniby the Company. never asked to sign the property book for. the inftrument, Was informed by Sergt, Mrymple that on the coutrary as the iistrument did not belong to the Comp/ny it was not necessary: to sltjn for xt.l To Mr Beard; Used ni other instrument while in the Band, Sergt, Dalrymple did not specify .'any particular ■ instrument; when, ,:fce stated signatures were not necflßsiyifw instruments 'that' did not belong, to the Baud. ) The Court then' adjourned.till two o'clock, ' /•',