R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 3178, 12 April 1889, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

(Continued.)

MASTERTON-THURSDAY, Before H. S. Wardoll, K.M. CIVIL CASES. Savage v. McKillop, claim to recover JE4B 12s, Plaintiff, through his solicitor, agreed to accept a non-suit with costs, i! 3 Bs. Richard Bright v. W. Falconer, claim £l9 15s, half cost of a boundary fence, Mr Beard for plaintiff and Mr Skipper for defendant.

The evidence was to the effect that it was arranged between both partita that no survey would bo necessary and that notice having Been given by Bright, as Falconer failed to erect his share of the fencing, Bright had ercoted for him on a line laid off by Faloi/iier, nho afterwards offered cash and wire equal to £l4 in payment of his share of the" fencing which Bright refused to acoept. Cross-examined by Mr Skipper, plaintiff said Falconer brought fencing wire on to the land, but not till after ho, plaintiff, had started the fence, Did not uso his wire but agreed to take it at the same price as his own cost. There was no dispute about the lino, Falconer laid it off. Was aware by what Mr Kiug stated that the fence was not on the direct lino, but it was erected on the hue laid off by Falconer, No man without an instrument could say the line was not a straight one. Askod Falconer to pay half the cost of surveying the line before commencing the wo r k but he deolined, Had paid for all the material and labor.

Bichard Field, settler, Feniridge, stated lie creeled a fence on tbo boundary line last winter at 10s per chain, which he considered a fair price. Followed the line partly laid off by Mr Falconer. Saw Mr Falconer after he bogan tho fence, and several times while working on it. The 10s per chain inoluded splitting and everything except material. John King, Engineer and Surveyor, proved that the line of fencing, 87 chains in extent, encroached from point to point ou Falconer's land depriving defendant of about three roods.

The defendant, in his evidence, denied having made any arrangement whatever with Bright about the fencing lino and attributed tbe blunder to carelessness, Had got material and made preparations for erecting hiil share, but Bright hud it suddenly constructed, It was admitted that a verbal agreement had been made, but Mr Skipper contended that a verbal agreement was not binding. His Worship intimated that ho would enter judgment for plaintiff subject to hearing argument on the point raised. PEIDAY. "Joseph Stringer, oharged with being drunk on the 10th April was fined k. ' ,:■ Arihtf? tyefcsty Fife alias

Wilson pleaded not guilty to failing, to find sureties for the payment of £2 10s per week for the support of his four children. Bergt. Price stated the facta of fcbo case, and said the accused was arrested in Eketabuna. Defendant stated that his wife and children were now in England, He pleaded that the older was cancelled, Constable Roche deposed to arresting accused, on the return of unexecuted warrants for. 1889., His Worship intimated that if acoused would consent to a remand; he would be remanded to Wellington. The accused was ordered to stand down till later in the day, when the warrant would ho produced, On arrival of mail His Worship read a warrant and committed accused to gaol for three months. Charles Ingram y, H, Croaker, assault. Information withdrawn, Alfred Gifford v. 0. Purote, assault. Mr Pownall for plaintiff. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Alfred Gifford Bworn, deposed to being billiard markor at the Prince of Wales Hotel. Defendant made a foul shot, and prosecutor scored it, but on an appeal from the defendant's opponent he took them baok whereupon Gurote struck witness on the nose with his clenched fist, The scores'were taken back on an appeal by his opponent, Did not say I would see you d—d first. His Worship ordered the case to stand over. ' : Samuel Minifie to .charged with folonously receiving from Eobert Thompson a gold watch valued at £5 knowing the same to be stolen. Mr Pownall for defendant,' Sergeant Price, the prosooutor, withdrew the information. Kobert Thompson was charged with the larceny of a gold watch, the property of William Carr, of Langdale on the 23rd January. Sergeant Price for theproseoutiou, Mr Pownall for defendant. All witnesses were ordored out of Court. Sergeant Price stated that on the morning of the date mentioned the watch was Btolen from the Empire Hotel. The watch at the time was not iu the possession of the owner. Carr had, about a month previously, given the watch to the billiard marker to sell. Thompson had obtained the consent of the, latter to wear the watch, but the owner on seeing him with it ordered him to give it up. On the eveuinp of the 23rd January the watch was taken from Carr's ledroom and he would show that the watch was iu the possession of defendant when ho was at Napier. Wni. Carr, sworn, deposed he was a rabbiler at Itiversdale. Was staying at the Empire Hotel last yearand left on the Ist March. Was at the Empire Hotel about a fortnight. before Christmas. Was in possession oi a gold watch, open faced, No. 20,000, valued the watoh at L 5. Watch produced was his property. Gave it to the billiard-marker to sell for L 7 or LB, and all over that he could keep himself. The watch was not sold, On the 21st January, was in company with accused and Blackburno the billiard marker, under the verandah of the Empire Hotel, On the evening of the 22nd he saw it in the possession of Blaekburne. Witness and Blaokburne occupied the samo bedroom in the hotol. Saw the watch in the bodroom on the night of the 22nd, in the possession of Blaekburne, Had not seen tho watch since 7,30 on the morning of the 23rd, when it was in Blaokburue's pocket at the foot of tho bed, until he saw it in the hands of the police last night. Gave information to the police of having lost tho watch in Fobruary. Looked to Blaekburne for the watch, and it was in consequence of what tho latter told him he gave information to the police. . By Mr Pownall; Blaekburne wroto a letter to the witness. (Mr Pownall hero asked the lettor be produced, to which the Sergeant objected), His Worship; Surely Sergeant Price you are not asking me to believo that because a letter is held by the police it is notproduceable I Produce the letter! By the Sergeant: Did not see the witness at Carswell's yesterday. Saw him on the Taueiu road. Letter signed " Billy" (produced) whom ho knew to be Blackbumo, was tho communication on which ho based his information to police, By Mr Pownall: Did not oome down to see Broadbont, as asked iu the letter, Saw tho watch on acoused, but had no objection to his having it, Had never asked accused for the watch, Saw Blaekburne on the 23rd January at 2.30, when ho was very drunk. He was also very drunk the next day. That was the day accused went to Napier. That evening Blaekburne asked him for the time, when witness said he (Blackbumo) had the watoh, whereupon witness said, " Well, Bob must have taken it to Napier, Had never sent to accused askiug for tho watch; believed it to be all right in his possession, Cross-examined by Sergt Price:— Blaekburne said " Bob is going to Napier." 1 will'get the watch from him." Had never given accused liberty to wear it, but had never objected to .his doing so. Did not go with Blaekburne to acoiissd's father. Wm Blaekburne, sworn, in answer to Sergeant Price; Was a billiard marker .residing in Masterton. Was employed at the Empiro Hotel last December. Left about a fortnight ago, Knew the last witness well. Bemembere dhim giving a gold watch either in November or December, which witness had for 2 or .21 months, Watch produced, was the one, He had the watoh for the purpose of selling it. Did not sell the watch, Knew the[accused, who was staying at the Empire Hotel, Gave him the watch to carry a week or eight days previous to 23rd January, Lent him the watch at his request, as ho wished to wear a medal ho had won as a pendant, On the 21st accused, Carr and witness were in company, when witness asked accused to give him the watch, winch ho did. Wore it up to the evening of tlie 22nd, About 5.80 or 0,80 next morning rose and went to his work, when the watoh was at the foot of the bed. Missed tho watch about noon the same day. Asked ono ol tho boys to go up and get it, The boy returned with the chain only, and said the watch was not there. Was under tho impression at the time that Carr hud taken tho watch, Could not swear what time he retired the night before. Was drunk that evening, but was perfectly sober the next morning. Had a conversation with Carr about the watch between five and six in the ovening, Thinking accused had the watch, asked] accused's father for his address. Left! Carr's presence to do so. Carr andi witness agreed to wait until accused's! return from Napier. Spoke to accused j when he returned arid asked' Had he! the watch. Accused said" No." To i th'fl M bf his belief Be said rfothing'

more, Had no further conversation with accused on that head. Subsequently informed aroused how.the. watch was lost, and told him he was under (he impression (bat ho had taken it,- Witness again said " no." He denied having it or having taken it. Witness then left themattor in Carr's hands. {■,_ ; .•'/;: '■■[' \ ■• . By Mr Pownall; It. was.' in the.'. bootroom of the hotel that he asked accused about, the watch.. Never knew Eoigard had thei watoh. Had witness' known Thompson had the watoh would have beon satisfied. Afterwards obtained information that the watch|was iti Roigdrd'a Was oh friendly.terms -witli amused, •; Carr saw the watoh on accusedV person several times, but wadee»g \ remark. Asked accused to return watoh on the;22nd January, for the? purpose ; of trying to Bell it'. Could* not recollect what passed on the evening of 22nd. Accused may have asked for the return of the watoh on the evening of 22nd, but ivas drunk. Could not stato positively. May have given him permission, Would have done so had he (witness) been sober, Accused was gone when the watch was missed. /When thought aocused had the watch was quite satisfied as to its safety, The letter signed " Billy" was in his handwriting. The statement in the letter that " Eoigard advanced money to Bob Thompson on the watch," he heard in the street. . . ■■ i . By His Worship: Acoused never led witness to beliove that he had the watch, Re-examined by Bergt Price: Accused occupied a room two doors from his own, and could easily enter it. Except on the night of the 22nd, had ■ never Given permission to accused to take the watch, but had given him authority to sell the watoh while it was in his possession. By Mr Pownall:—Had Thompson ; sold the watch for £8 would have been satisfied to take that amount, i [Left Sitting.]