WESTPORT DISTRICT COURT.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 329, 20 August 1868, Page 2

WESTPORT DISTRICT COURT.

"Wednesday August 18. (Before his Honor Judge Clarke.) The Criminal sittings of this court were concluded yesterday, only two cases remained to be tried. A case Regina v. M'Donald was first brought forward. Prisoner in the information was charged with stealing gold, and had been admitted to bail. Mr David Leslie and Mr Peter Mango being his sureties. On the trial being called on however, the principal person interested, in the shape of the accused, was absent, and Messrs Leslie and Mango were called on to pay their surety money, the recognizances being estreated. OBTAINI.VGGOODS BY FALSE PRETEKCES.

John Lea hern was charged with having in May last obtaiued goods from Ehrenfriedßros., under fraudulent representations. Mr Tyler appeared for the defence. The evidence in this case was published about a week ago, and it is unnecessary to repeat it at length. The substance of it was that the defendant who had been for some two years a publican in Westport, got into difficulties, and eventually levanted. A kind of creditor's committee was called, when it was resolved to defray the expenses of a warrant, and Detective Lambert was despatched and brought -defendant back on a warrant procured from this bench by the present prosecutors. It seems that a day or two before his departure he had called at Ehrenfried's and told them hewasjabout to enlarge his hotel, and at three j different times got goods amounting to .£l3 4s in all, as was alleged under fraudulent pretences. The Crown failed to sustain the charge, and his Honor directed the jury to acquit the defendant as there was not evidence to support the information. He was accordingly released, but soon afterwards arrested as a debtor, on a warraut from the Resident Magistrate's Court here.

This concluded the Criminal business and the court then adjourned for an hour. CIVIL SITTIJ^OS. On re-assembling thu only case remaining for trial, was proceeded with before a special jury of four. BAJfSON V. POUTER. Tins was an action to recover the sum of £2OO for timber sold and delivered, aud for work and labour done in the erection of the Imperial hotel in Gladstone street.

Mr Tyler appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Campbell for the defendant. Before the case was gone into, Mr Tyler drew the attention of his Honor to a set-off that had v beeu put in for £-111 155., and to the second plea. In reference to the former he sub- [ mitted that the amount was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, and therefore that it could not be admitted. If defendant had any such claim against plaintiff he must recover it by another action, with regard to the second plea, it was of so vague and indefinite character that it was impossible for the plaintiff to specifically answer it. lie therefore suggested that the set-off could not be allowed, and that the plea referred to, should be struck out.

His Honor, after hearing Mr Campbell, said the plea was bad on. the face of it, and it was therefore struck out. He also concurred with Mr Tyler as to the set-off, and this also was set aside, and the case proceeded on its merits.

Mr Tyler stated the case, which was simply this. The plaintiff entered into a contract to build the Imperial hotel, the amount of which was £539 19s 3d, On this £253 was paid, and plaintiff recognised a set-off of £sl lis 3d, leaving a balance of £231, which was reduced to £2OO, to bring it within the jurisdiction of the court. In December last year an arrangement was made between the plaintiff and defeudant, whereby the former was to buy the latter's interest, (one-half share) in the hotel, and for it, as defendant alleges, plaintiff was to give a clear acquittance of all dues and demands from him (defendant), in addition to the sum of £SO cash, and £96 more on a clear transfer being made. 'An agreement was draw r n up in which the acquittance was not mentioned, but where the two above sums were referred to, and the plrviiutifl? oulx.o(|uonHy withdrew from the bargain, and gave up or sold the interest he had purchased. He now brought this action for the balance of money due for building, Mr Tyler his counsel contending that all parties were bound by the four corners of the agreement put in, whereby provision was made for the payment cf the two above meutioned sums, and that nothing could be urged in de-. fence otherwise than therein contained If the defendant had grounds he could commence a cross action, but that in this case he had no substantial defence.

Mr Bauson, the plaintiff', was examined at considerable lengtb, and there was a host of witnesses yet to be brought forward, so his Honor after hearing that evidence, adjourned the Court till 11 o'clock this day.