R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VI, Issue 1855, 3 December 1884, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

CaRTERTON-TUESDAY. (Before H.%vWardell, R.M., arid , ~... W, Booth, J.P.) Constable Robert. Darby v Charles Giles.—Breach of ; Gaming and Lotteries Act 1881. His worship gave his "decision in this case which was heard on the 4th of November last. The contention for the defence was, that the alleged game of chance took place in the Marquis of Normandy Hotel after the hour 'appointed for closing, the-place iwlwre the'game was played 'coiild "hot', be called a;public place. Mr' Beard arid Mr Sandilahds appeared' for' defendant. The court said the point raised for the defence, was one to which the Court, must give effect, the information would therefore be dismissed. While dismissing tlie information, however, it would bo well to remark that if it could be shown that the landlord of the hotel was aware of the playing'of any such game on his licensed premises, the view taken in .this cose wViild hot extend to such landlord, and thereby save him ftw punishment. Paraone Pahoro v William P. Anderson,— The defendant, a Swede, was charged with haying assaulted the complainants wife, Kanara Pahoro yesterday. The circumstances of,the ..assault as stated by Eiauara were that the defendant, .who. was working for her husband, tethered a horse in front of the door of her house. Beiug afraid lest injury should be done to the children she removed the horse to a pad;. dock. Defendant came up and saying her husband-had- told him to put the horse there, asked her.why she removed it. She said lest tho children should get hurt. Defendant then went into the house and on coming outside again, assaulted her by holding her by the hands and throwing her twice to the ground, tearing her dress nnd grazing the skin from her knee..Tho defendant entirely denied the faots as stated by the witness. Another witness was called who substantiated the evidence already given. Defendant was fined 10s and costs 7s, in default seven days' hard labor. . W. H. Levin v Joseph Ingley and John Wyats Lee. -Accused 1 ' {were charged with haying unlawfully and wickedly conspired confederated a,nd agreed together to defraud the New .Zealand Loan Company of the sum of six thousand pounds. Mr Travers appeared for the prosecution, and Messrs Travers and Sandilands for accused. The case as opened by the prosecution was that the defendants applied to the ..above Company through Mr Charles Pownall for a loan of six thousand pounds, and offered as security certain property which Ingley valued at L 4 10 per acre. When the valuer employed by jthe Company arrived to inspect the offered security, the two defendants showed him certain property including some splendid totara bush, In consequence of the representations made, the loan was completed and the money advanced, The prosecutiou would be able to show that tho land shown to the valuer was not the property of the defendants, and hence the money had been obtained by fraud. Charles James Pownall, sorivener, disposed that in March 1883 Ingley instructed him to obtain a loan ■ of on 666 acres of land, He applied to the New Zealand Trust and loan Company for the money,. Subsequently he made another amplication on; behalf-'of Lee for £6OOO on 1000 acres of land,, In the first application 'timber described by Leo was included, '£5000: was; qhtainedirom the company for the Becond application (application ;B), Leo authorised witness "to sign, the - loan, appiicatign form'. .'•• '• ; " '' : : : WilUiim James. Smith of Wanganui, valuer to the Now. Zealand .Trust and Loan..Company, stated that he valued property in application A, 666 acres, 365, Taratahi Plain,; in April 1883. Ingley met him'by appointment at the Railway Station arid drove him to Lee's house.' 1 ;, Ingley described the land ai good-sawing timber bush. Lee and Ingley took hirn to bush of very fine totara situated on a terrace,' after wards he was shown a bush containing" rirau, white pine and mataj. To the best of his belief Ingley told him that that mi the land which he had come to see. If 6 for the survey pegs but was told that they had had been knocked about by the cattle,' Lee pointed out a site where he proposed to ereot a saw-mill for cutting the timber which witness had been shewn which he was about buying, In August, 1884, he again visited the land with; Mr Bishop and Mr Boys, They searched for survey pegs and found one. No 119, twenty chains from the place where he had previously looked for .them when with Ingley and Lee. He •also saw a survey peg on the hill, No, 365, half a mile from where he had been taken by accused. The land there was steep ana 1 clayey, cojererj with poor scrub, nqt worth ten shilling! an acre/ The land he saw with the accused he valued at L 4 per acre. ' Crossexarpined; He did not recol lect Ingley saying to him " I have arranged with Mr Boys tp come with iis to show us section 365, but as helms not come I want yon to go anc see if you can find it for lis," Sbmf , land was pointed out to him as Boys' , land."' • Morgan Carkeek, authorised sur • veyor, deposed that he had made t

recognizance survey ■' 365 j Where it; abuttedejection was n low clif A covered with black ; m.ixed with -.rimu *sidfs ci of narrow gullies. The a valueless...; Proceeding s'ouffiwari'the : r land got worse, being poor Pro- I ceedihg westward there was a patch of I 50 or 60 acres with: a .few • totaras, a tnatai, and rimu. The"Mungatareraj i stream was not on section jhut t about sixty chains- distant.'.. r The', rest" 4 of the section was worth about 20s per 1 acre. i Charles Elgar,. manager at, Mr ] Pharazyn's station, stated, that ;;be visited section 365 at. the request of I Mr Levin. He valued it at ten ( shillingsati-acre. '•''■; ''" ~ j Alfred Booth, saw miller, Carterton, i deposed that he owned land .in the i neighborhood of sectidhi36s, It was a j black birch section, but there were 50 i or 60 acres in it tit for sawmilling i purposes if they could only be got at. The land as it was at present was not l woiithifil per acre. .'■'.;' . '■"•.-. i J. N.Coieiidge, authorized surveyor, i confirmed; the evidence of previous 1 witnesses. ;. ". i Mr Travers applied for a remand with i a view to the prodttction. of further ] evidence. It was finally arranged that.. a remand should be granted "until,'the :i 16th instant, bail, two sureties in LSO j each, being allowed. •../• '■;'. V ;./•,' 1 - Lewis Nix v. .William Coe;'-* Judg- ,j ment summons L 3 10s, Defendant < was ordered to pay r ..40s i default fourteen day's William Booth v B, fl.'MioUe;*U 10s Bd. Mr Beard'; for plaintiff. ; Judgment for. amount iiitl costs'. . Saftfe v.; John Browh'Tdiluiarangi,—' Claim fj o is 2d. defendant paid L4.;-2s Sd into Courtyi/i satisfaction 1 of claia)/<; This.was not accepted,' and a judgment was entered for amount and costs r cr|ditbeirig given for the amount, ■paid into Court. George.Beau v Maud A. S. srant. Claim on dishonored cheque L 9. ' Judgment for amount and costs. William P. Allen v W.Primmei'.:Dobt ; L 7 13s Id, Judgment for amount and costs.