RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 765, 19 January 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

(Before J. Giles, Esq., E.M.) Tuesday, January 17. Anne Whelan v. James Whelan. No appearance, struck out. CIVIL CASES. Melville v. Lane. Claim for £75, being the amount of dishonored promissory note. The case had been adjourned since Friday last. Mr Home appeared, with Mr Bickerton Fisher, for the defendant. The plaintiff, sworn, stated: I am suing under a dishonored promissory note, which I produce. It has not been presented for payment, and the money has not been paid. The signature is that of the defendant. The note was not presented at the request of the defendant, who said that it was no use taking the bill to the bank, as the money he expected had not arrived, and it would look bad if a bill were presented and dishonored. Mr Fisher stated that the defence set up would be that the bill had been obtained by fraud, and he should call upon the plaintiff to give evidence as to the consideration for which the bill I was given.

Plaintiff continued: About three years ago defendant came to me stating that he was starving, and had no place of abode. He asked me for assistance. I said I was hard up also, but if he would wait until I had taken .some money at the shooting gallery, I would give him some. He waited, and I gave him ss. 1 did not see him after then until about eighteen months ago, when he said that he had received letters from San Francisco, that he expected money, and would pay my passage to San Francisco, as I had done him a good turn. He was drunk at the time. The following day he came and repeated his promise, being then quite sober. He then borrowed fourteen shillings from me. From the 2nd or 3rd of June last until the 9th of October he got sums of money from me daily. On October 9th I saw him at Gibson's, and we went out fishing together on the lagoon. Lane fell out of the boat, and I had some difficulty in savinohim. He then proposed to come into town on the ground that he was afraid he would be drowned if he continued to work with the boat on the lagoon. On October 10 we entered into an arrangement that he should have board, lodging, and washing at the rate of £2 per week. Laue said on that occasion that he owed me a considerable sum, and as he intended stopping six or seven weeks, until his money came out, he would give me a promissory note for £75. At that time Turner, a watchmaker, came into my place for a small account, and Lane asked Turner to draw out a bill. I said that I was not particular about a bill, as I was willing to trust him. Lane insisted upon a bill-form being got and drawn up. I got the bill, and Turner filled up the particulars. Lane said, when he gave the bill, if there was any balance either way when it fell due, we could settle it between us. Lane remained in my place for six weeks after that.

By the Bench : The bill was partly to cover past and partly to cover future transactions.

Plaintiff continued : On a Sunday, early in November, Lane's conduct was so outrageous that I could not put up with him, and I ordered him away. When leaving he promised to pay the bill as a man. Mr Fisher : Only some 17s having been specifically proved as the consideration for the bill, does your Worship think that we are called upon for any defence ? I must contend that the claim, according to tho plaintiffs own showing, is altogether preposterous. His Worship said that he was not prepared to dismiss the case. There had been a consideration sworn to, and he should, therefore, proceed with the case.

Mr Fisher cross-examined the plaintiff, who said: I have a pocket-book containing particulars of account between myself and Lane. The entries were made in the pocket-book at the time that the various transactions took place. I had a ledger into which these items were copied, but fit strangely disappeared the very morning that Lane left. The first items of the account are Oct. 10, cash lent, 14s; Oct. 11, cash lent, 7s; Oct. 12, casli Jent, 10s ; and so on every day during the seven weeks the defendant remained at my place. I charged nothing for saving Lane from drown ing. The defendant has laid out nothing for myself and family. My family did not use the jellies supplied to Lane, and I never received a bottle of vinegar, 8 lbs potatoes, 8 lbs cheese &c, from Smyrk on Lane's account. A kit of oysters was brought round to my and I opened the oysters for Lanu. A second kit was consumed by Lano and Mr P|tt's clerk. .1 have never been hard-up in the Buller. I have always been able, in some way or other, to obtain a good livelihood for myself and family. I do not recollect on Oct. 10, when the bill was giveu,anything being said about my passage to San

Fraucisco. 160 not recollect saying that I wanted to go to San Francisco. When the bill was given, it was not to make up our passage money. The pair of men's boots and children's boots, amounting to£l lis, for which a receipt is produced by Lane, I admit having had ; but the child's boots were a present, and I very much doubt if Lane paid 22s 6d for the boots I got. I never had goods directly or indirectly from Stitt Bros. Lane might, have brought a bottle of brandy round to my place from there, and, if ever he did so, he was sure to bring plenty of friends to consume it. The item of £5 is for a suit of clothes.

By the Bench: The entries might sometimes have been made at intervals of two days. The suit of clothes was too small for me, and it was arranged that Lane should either give me a new suit in exchange or £5.

J. A. M. Turner: I recollect October 10, 1870. I was in Melville's place on that day, and I saw Mr Pringle, Mr LaneJVirlMelville, and Mrs Melville there. lane asked me to draw out a bill for £75, saying that he owed Melville a good deal of money, and before the bill fell due he would owe Melville all the money, if not more. The bill was drawn at Lane's request, and I saw hisr sign it. Lane said the acceptance was negotiable anywhere. By Mr Home: I have kuown Lane two years. The bill transaction took place on the morning of October 10. Lane was more sane and sober on that occasion than I have seen him for a long time. I saw no accounts gone into or produced. My name is on the back of the bill as a witness. All the crew were sober. I have heard Lane say repeatedly that Melville and family were to accompany him to San Francisco. I have not known Lane to act in an extravagant and absurd manner, bur I have heard of his doing so. I have seen Lane sober for six months together, but if he could get the grog, he would have it. I have known Lane to be tipsy several times. I have no interest in this action. I have no claim upon Lane. Melville owes me a small sum of money, which has been a long time due, for cash lent. I called for payment of this money on October 10, but did not get it, and I have not received it since. I would not have been here to-day unless I had been subpoenaed. By the Bench : I was subpeenaed to appear when the case was last before the Court.

The Bench : Then if you had failed to appear you would have rendered yourself liable to a fine. A second subpoena was unnecessary. Cross-examination continued: I do not recollect that it was arranged that Melville was to sell his house and premises, Lane undertaking to make up any deficiency in the passage money to San Francisco, nor that the bill was given for such a purpose. I took Lane into an adjoining apartment before I attested his signature, to know if he owed the money, and if the transaction were an honest one. He answered me that he owed the money, and .would be more deeply indebted to Melville before the bill was due. We had a glass of beer when the bill was drawn up. I know nothing of goods being supplied to Melville, and charged to Lane. Joseph Pringle: I know the defendant, and saw him at Melville's on October 10. I heard Lane say "Go and get a stamped promissory note," aud he asked Turner to draw it up. I have often, seen Melville give Lane money. On one occasion Lane said that he had been out to Gibson's, and that Gibson had kicked him out of the house, when he had fallen and hurt his back. Lame on that occasion asked for money to buy a plaster, and Melville gave him ss. On another occasion Lane wanted to telegraph to Nelson, and Melville gave him four shiiliugs for that purpose. I often saw Lane at Melville's. Lane would come in, and his first expression would be " "Who's got any money." Lane boarded and lodged with Melville.

Cross-examined: I never in my life saw Lane bring any provisions to the house. He said he would pay what he owed to Merville when he got his money. He did not say he would pay the promissory note, hut I suppose he meant that. I was constantly in Melville's place. The house consists of two rooms and a kitchen. I was goinoin and out while the bill was being drawn up, bxit I was present when Lane signed. I was all there at the wind-up. John Aitehison Carr gave similar evidence as to Lane's perfect sanity. Cross-examiued : I have often seen Melville give Lane money, but I could not state the sum, as I, on no occasion, saw the money actually •counted. I have seen four or five shillings pass on several occasions, aud •lending one or two shillings has been a daily occurrence for six or eight months. Lane hoarded with Melville. I do not know what sort of sleenin" accomodation Melville has, but i have seen Lano sleeping on the sofa. I have known Lano for three years. He was sober during the first three weeks that he stayed with Melville. I believe that the reason Lane left Melville's was in consequence of a disagreement which arose out, of Mr Lane having, brought M'r Curie to dine. Mrs Melville objected. I have heard Lane say that he had to thank Tom (Melville) for his life, and that he took him in when nobody else would. Mr Horno a Idressed the Court aud called the defendant who said :

I know the plaintiff. 1 do not recognise the bill produced. 1 do not owe Melville £75, and I do not ve-

collect giving a promissory note for any such amount. The only sum I over got from Melville was 2s Gil for a plaster, and that was out of a pound note which I had myself previously given him. I lived there a few week's by invitation. I found nothing in the house, and I immediately ordered supplies. The whole of Stitt's bill for £7 and a portion of the bill for £32 15s 9d are for goods supplied, on my account, to Melville. The whole of the articles comprised in Smyrk's account for £3 2s, with the exception of an item of ss, were supplied on my account, to Melville, and the chief portion was delivered by Smyrk. I have also paid Simpson, for boots, £1 lis on Melville's account; also an account to Carne, who threatened to sue Melville, and an account to Field. Cross-examined by Melville: Mr Stitt did not kick me out of his place. The majority of the articles in the larger bill were not for you, but a portion was.

By the Bench: The recept of a summons was the first that I ever knew of my promissory note for £75 being in existence. Edward Sinyrk, grocer and baker, proved the delivery of goods to Melville on Lane's account. He discontinued serving Melville about that time, and declined to give him credit. Mr Home addressed the Court, and his Worship reserved judgment until Thursday. Simon v. Sweeney.—ln this case a fraud summons had been issued, to which the defendant did not appear. His Worship informed the plaintiff that, on application, the Court would issue a warrant for the apprehension of the defendant.

Murphy v. J. Cole, trading as Cole and Co.—Claim for £IOO.

Mr Home appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Pitt watched the case on behalf of a party of miners at Addison' 3, formerly connected with Cole. Murphy stated in evidence that he lent Cole £250 when in Brighton some three years ago, of which £l2O had been repaid. The sum still owing was £l3O, and he reduced his claim to £IOO to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Court.

Judgment for the plaintiff for £IOO and costs.

Lane v. Melville.—This was an action to recover cartain goods detained by the defendant, or their value £l7. Mr Pisher appeared for the plaintiff. The defendant admitted having a carpet-bag containing articles as per list produced, which he was prepared and willing to give up. Evidence was i aken with respect to a copy of Shakspere's works of the value of 45s and photographic views valued at £l, which it was contended the defendant retained in his possession. The defendant denied having the articles, and the case was dismissed in respect to all the articles not comprised in the list given in by the defendant. Ealla v. Palmer (master of the steamer Murray).—Mr Pitt, who appeared for Mr Falla, stated that the defendant could not appear in consequence of the departure of the steamer Murray, and he would propose an adjournment until the steamer was in port. Adjourned accordingly.

Fox v. Lane. —Claim for £5 19s Mr Fisher, on behalf of the defendant! admitted the liability, but objected to pay the costs of the action, as the summons had only been served 2-i hours before the hearing, and a portion of the goods had not been delivered until the morning after the service of the summons.

Judgment for the plaiutiff in the amount claimed, without costs. Venables v. Harris.— This was a claim for £9 7s for services rendered, and special damages for alleged breach of agreement.

Mr Pitt appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Horne for the defendant.

According to the evidence, it appeared that the plaintiff had been engaged by Harris shortly before the Christmas holidays, at Greymouth, to proceed to Westport, and serve at the National Hotel in the capacity of barmaid and dance-girl, at £2 per week. The evidence of Mr Harris, Mrs Harris, and a musician in the employ of Mr Harris, went to show that the plaintiff, throughout the entire term of her engagement, had constantly indulged in the us eof abusive and indecent language, which, had been submitted to until after Christmas and New Year. On Monday, the 9th inst., it was alleged that the boarders complained of the language used, and Mrs Harris feared to interpose, dreading the abuse she might receive. Mr Harris was sent for, and he turned the plaintiff out of doors. The plaintiff had then served five weeks, and her engagement did not terminate for eight weeks. She admitted having received in cash and goods the sum of £6 13s, which would leave the balance due which was sought to be recovered, as she maintained that she had been prevented from fulfilling her engagement by the action of the defendant. Evidence was called to prove that the defendant had made use of offensive language, and he admitted having been incited to do so by the plaintiff's disgraceful conduct.

His Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff for £3 7s. Levatte v. Parer. —Adjourned for a week for service of cummoiss, the defendant having proceeded to Inangahua.

Renewals of publican's and accommodation licenses were granted to J. Simon, J. A. Bonguelmi, Thomas Craddook, Joseph Malloy, and Wm. Brandon.

WESTPORT WARDER S COURT

Friday, Jan. , 17. (Before J. Giles, Esq., Warden.) j Lloyd v. Freeth and Greig. The plaint was that the defendants were in illegal possession of a piece of ground on the Coal Reserve, at the corner of Kennedy-street and Wharf-street. Mr Pitt appeared for the defendants, and stated that he intended to order all witnesses out of Court, but the Warden was subpoenaed as a witness and he could scarcely see how the case could be proceeded with. The Warden said he was there to try the case, and his having been subpoenaed would not be allowed to interfere with the hearing of the case. Mr Pitt applied for an adjournment as his client was absent on very important business, and had only received a summons about 12 hours before the departure of the steamer for Dunedin.

After some discussion an adjournment was agreed to, and the case was set down for hearing on the 31st inst. Philpott v. Catchpole. This was a claim tor £16, being the balance due by the defendant to the plaintiff, previous to their dissolution of partnership as dividing mates. Mr J. Bickerton Fisher appeared for the complainant, and Mr Pitt for the defendant. According to the evidence of both sides, at the settlement of accounts, Catchpole had received some £32 out of his claim in excess of the earnings of Philpott. It was stated by Catchpole that Philpott had half admitted that he got more gold out of his claim than he had accounted for, and it was agreed that they should consider everything squared. The Warden inclined to the belief that there had been a complete understanding when the partnership Avas dissolved, and gave judgment for the defendant with costs.

A large number of applications for mining purposes were disposed of, and the Court adjourned shortly before seven p.m.