LATEST TELEGRAMS.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 867, 28 September 1871, Page 2

LATEST TELEGRAMS.

(per greville's telegram company, betjteb's agents). Wellington, Sept. 27. The steamship Gothenburg has arrived and leaves for Nelson at 5 p.m. Auckland, Sept. 26. A Company is forming to supply the city with water. Lennox quotes Caledonian shares at £l2O. Dunedin, Sept, 27. The Tokomairiro petition against Immigration has been forwarded to the Assembly. Mackay's residence at Oamaru has been destroyed by fire. It was insured for £350 in the Liverpool and Globe offices. Corporal Ogilvie won ths Artillery Challenge Shield, scoring 65 points. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT. Thursday, Septembei 26. (Before J. Giles, Esq., R.M.) M'Carthy v. Jennings. This was an information for assaull, and the defendant not appearing, a warrant was issued for her arrest. Renewals of publicans' licenses were granted to Henry Stannard, John Derungs, and Alfrel Smith, and a transfer of same fron the executor of E.'Austin, deceased, to James Grant. civil cases. Williams v. Duggan.—The plaintiff in this case, John Williams ii a storekeeper and farmer at Eern Fat, Inangahua, and the defendant hat been in his employ as labourer, and previously a drover and cattle dealer. The action was brought to recover th» sum of £65 10s, the value of twent; ounces of gold, lent by the plaintiff'; wile to the defendant, for the pupose of enabling the latter to comdete the purchase money of a lot o cattle. The claim included goods sujplied to the value of £2, and there wasa credit of £l2 for wages. • The defendant filed a setoff for £ll2, consisting of the fdlowing items:—Cash lent to plaintiff a July, 1870, £34; value of horse soK, £2O; side of beef, £5 8s; 20 weekcand 4 days' wages, at 40s per week, .41 7s ; use of horse, 9 weeks at 25s pe; week, £ll ss. Mr Pitt conducted the case or the plaintiff, and Mr Horne defendd. The evidence of Mrs Williain, the

wife of the plaintiff; that of Charles Bennett, a drover j and the testimony of the plaintiff were taken. Mrs Williams stated that the defendant was known to her for four years, having been digging at the Inangakua. He dealt with her husband for Btores, and their business transactions had alwas been satisfactory. Her husband had a store and homestead at Fern flat, and she had the management of a branch store. They had been in the habit of erecting stores at various places, following the small rushes that opened up. She had had a store at Redmond's, Burke's, and the Landing Creek. On April 7th, 1870, the defendant, who had given up digging, and j.ono into cattle' dealing, asked for the loan of a few pounds to complete the purchase of some cattle in Nelson. She did not lend the money that day, knowing that the defendant was no scholar, and therefore uuable to give any satisfactory acknowledgment for the money. He remained at the store that night, and the following morning she asked him if 12 ozs of gold would meet his wants. He replied that he should require a few pounds more, and with that she weighed out twenty ounces of gold, and gave it to the defendant. Several parties were present, and among others, Charles Beunett.

At this stage of the proceedings the counsel for the defendant stated that the item of £75 10s was admitted. The examination of the witness was continued in respect to the alleged set-off. She stated that she had not informed her husband of the exact state of affairs until about two months ago, not desiring to make him uneasy, and confidently hoping that the defeudant would return the money. She had borrowed gold from diggers to make up the amount in the meantime, but had finally told her husband, as there appeared no likelihood of her getting the money. From April 7, 1870, until the present time, she had not received a single shilling from the defendant. At the time that the gold was given to him, he got a pair of pants also, which were £2. They formed the remaining item of the account. At no time had the defendant paid or lent her the sum of £34. She had received the sum of £2 from Mark Connor, as payment of a debt due by him to the defendant. That sum she had retained. Mark Connor owed her at that time an account for stores, and he was selling 16dwt of gold. The defendant was present. Connor said " I owe you money and I owe £2 to Duggan; whom shall I pay ?" Witness replied that it was all right, and as she had no money, only gold, she did not pay the defendant. She regretted at the time that she had no money, as she would have paid it in +hn hnpo -that the defendant would take the hint and give her back what she had lent him. She denied ever having bought a horse from the defendant, thak_.was,not paid for at the time. When she lent him the gold, he asked her what the interest was to be. She replied that she would never charge for a loan for a few weeks. The defendant expressed himself grateful, and said that he must make her a present of a milch cow or a horse. He came to the branch store mounted on a black horse which had been ridden severely from Nelson, had foundered and. Jwas gone all over. He offered to give her the horse, but she did not want it, and declined the gift as the animal was not worth the expense of bringing round. She told him to leave the horse at Forn Flat to give it a spell. Witness admitted having had a side of beef. The diggers in the gully were dissstisfied with the meat they were getting, and she spoke to the ' boys' to secure their custom for Duggan. They promised to support him, and he brought a side of beef down. He had no store and she allowed him to hang the beef in her place. He had to leave suddenly, a bailiff being after him from Nelson with a warrant for his arrest arising out of some trouble the defendant had got into. He asked her to sell the beef for him, and she said that she would do what she could. It was very indifferent meat and unsaleable. She only got paid for 221b at Bd, which just sufficed to pay for the salt used in pickling it. She believed some of the meat was still in one of the old stores. With respect to the hiring, the claim was incorrect. She had a distinct recollection of his being engaged on the day following Boxingday, December 27.—a very remarkable day—and he was discharged on March 17, JSt. Patrick's-day,—also a very remarkable day. The wages due to him amounted to £23, and deducting £ll for goods supplied he was entitled to £l2, which had been allowed in the amount. It was impossible that the defendant could have accepted employment in October as he was playing "hide and go Beek" with the bailiff Cato. When the latter was at Fesn Flat, Duggan would be at Costello's, or the branch store. Sometimes he would spend half the day up a tree. The bailiff " stuck up" about £lO at her husband's which had also never been paid. She had no knowledge of a horse being hired. The foundered horse was kept for two or three months, and her husband lent the defendant a horse to continue his journey. The latter was kept for a number of weeks, and finally Williams had to pay a man to follow the defendant and obtain possession of it. The witness was subjected to a severe cross-examination, more especially in respect to the alleged payment of £34 on account, but without shaking her evidence-in-chief.

Charles Bennett, butcher, recollected early in April 1870, Mrs Williams lending the defendant twenty ounces of gold. Defendant remarked that it was not every one who would lend him such a sum, and something was said about a milch cow, but he was busy writing, and did not pay much attention to the conversation.

By Mr Home: The defendant and I sold Williams a lot of sheep on joint account. We went to the branch store to get paid. Duggan was not settled with in my presence. By Mr Pitt: The sheep transaction took place some time previous to the lending of the gold by Mrs Williams. The plaintiff Williams confined himself in his evidence chiefly to the hiring and the alleged sale of the horse .He corroborated the testimony of Mrs Williams with respect to the condition of the horse. He had never bought a < horse from the defendant but that had been settled for. He had sent a packer to the Little Grey for the purpose of getting seed potatoes. The packer rode one of his (plaintiff's) horses down, and intended to ride Duggan's horse back He found that the animal was unable to carry him, and the horse was left on the other side of the Saddle. The packer went the following morning for the horse, and found it dead. He. engaged the defendant at £2 per week, and his board on Deemeber 27, and the engagement terminated by the discharge of Duggan on March 17. They had a set. tlement then, resulting in the sum of £L2 being due to the defendant. He was perfectly satisfied, but declined the money, stating that he owed Mrs Williams money. Witness did not understand it, bnt said nothing at the time. ,

The defendant in his evidence swore positively to the payment of £32 in notes on account of the borrowed gold. He was equally certain that Mrs Williams purchased the horse. It cost him £l7 in Kelson, and as he owed her money, he let her have the horse, stating that he would charge her reasonable. He admitted that the side of beef was left for Mrs Williams to sell on his account, but stated that she admitted to him its having realised £5 Bs. The engagement to go to work was with Mrs Williams on October 24. She told him to go r to the farm. He 'did not desire to let Williams know about the money,and that wasthe reason he worked without arranging any terms. The horse hire was for nine weeks' use of a horse, for ploughing, packing and stockdriving. He used it himself while working for Williams. Mr Home addressed the Court, and referred to the position of the defendant, while in fear of arrest, as being likely to account for much that might appear singular in connection with the case. Me might atso add that they would have applied for an adjournment in order to obtain the evidence of wituesses to the payment of the £32, but for the heavy cost it would have entailed, and the fact of the defendant being without means. If his Worship could arrange in any way to postpone his decision until the evidence of these parties could be obtained it would be much more satisfactory. Mr Pitt replied. Mis Worship, in giving judgment, said that the demand of the plaintiff being admitted, he need only refer to the set-off. With respect to the contention of plaintiffs counsel, that gross perjury must have been committed on one side or the other, he could only express a hope that, if such' were the case, evidence might be forthcoming. For his own part, there was nothing in the evidence of either Mrs Williams or the defendant which could lead him to attach greater weight to the statement of one than the other. But the defendant in filing a set-off was bound to prove the items, and he must say that the evidence in support of them was insufficient. He had failed to prove his case. There would appear to be some grounds for his claim in respect to the item for the horse, but he had failed to show that the horse bad been purchased. However, according to the plaintiff's evidence, the horse had been used by his packer, and under the circumstances the plaintiff had no right to have permitted it. The horse died whilst on the journey. The circumstances, would perhaps, have justified an action for damages ; bnt, there was no proof of the sale of the horse. The evidence about the hiring, was also insufficient, As a rule, it may be accepted* that, where a man is receiving board free of charge, and performs certain work without any engagement, it is implied that the services shall be set against it. The same applies to the hire of the horse. A specific hiring took place on December 27, but an allowance had been made for the services performed since that date. Judgment would therefore be for the plaintiff in the amount claimed and costs £l3 18s, less the £2 received from Connor on account of the defendant. London v Blackmore.—Claim for £l4 14s. Judgment deferred. Suisted Bros, v Stcnhouse.—Claim for £1 14 7d. Judgment for the plaintiffs-by default in the amount claimed and costs.