RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 888, 16 November 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Tuesday, November 14

(Before J. Giles, Esq., R.M.)

Sarah M.Cullough charged with using indecent language at the Masonic Hall, on the occasion of a public entertainment, was fined 20s or in default three days' imprisonment. CITIL CASES. Samuel Hatfield v Greorge Blackburn.—Claim for £lO. Mr Pitt conducted the case for the plaintiff. The latter did not appear. The defendant objected to the case being proceeded with in the absence of the plaintiff. He admitted no portion of the claim. His Worship thought that the case could be adjourned. If there were any likelihood of the plaintiff being present it could be put to the bottom of the list. Mr Pitt had no objection to that course, but he must press for the case being disposed of even were the plaintiff not present. He was in a position to prove his case without the plaintiff. His Worship enquired of the defendant whether he had subpmnaed the plaintiff. The defendant replied that he had not. He had the defendant's statement that the present action had been instituted entirely against his desire. The case was put to the bottom of the list, his Worship stating that counsel had better take steps to obtain the presence of the plaintiff, otherwise ho might find it necessary to adjourn the case to a future day. BECOVEBY OF WAGES. Clements v Colvin.—Claim for 6s. This was an action to recover one week's wages. The defendant admitted the claim, but pleaded a set-off of 7s 6d, for meat delivered. The plaintiff admitted the set-off, but alleged that a settlement had been arrived at on November Ist, while the claim for wages was a subsequent matter. The set-off had been balanced by sundry work performed by the plaintiff whilst he was not in the employ of the defendant. The latter stated that the plaintiff had been remunerated for those services, having refused to do anything unless paid beforehand. He had been repeatedly asked for payment of the account, and had agreed that it should be deducted from his wages. The defendant's shopman was called to *prove the settlement.on November Ist, but stated in evidence that he had no i recollection of such having taken placo. His Worship, in the absence of'

sufficient proof of the set-off having been settled, nonsuited the plaintiff.

RENT FOR COTTAGE. Antonio Thomas v Guiseppi Touketti.—Claim for £2 17s 6d. This was an action rent of a cottage on the beach. The defendant denied the claim. The plaintiff staled that he had agreed with the defendant to live in the cottage. He (plaintiff) was a boatman and. occasionally absent up the river. The defendant lived by himself when he was away, and at other times they resided together. The agreement was to pay 2a 6d weekly rent.

The defendant who appeared through an interpreter, Vincent Fama, denied agreeing to pay 2s 6d per week. The plaintiff had offered to him to live in the cottage rent free in consideration of his taking charge of it while the plaintiff was absent on his upriver trips.

A witness John Lawrence gave evidence in support of the defendant's statement.

Judgment for the defendant. ALLEGED DETENTION OF MONEY

Hatfield v Blackburn. The hearing of this case was resumed.

Mr Shapter appeared for the defendant, and stated that so far as he was instructed it would appear that the plaintiff was no party to the present action. The circumstances of the case were that Hatfield was master of the Mary Van Every, and that Mr Munro had acted as agent, aud subsequently had been in communication with the owners of that vessel. Acting iu their behalf for >,he purpose of obtaining a settlement between the owners and the master of the vessel, he had instructed Mr Pitt to enter upon the present action. Mr Pitt must interrupt his learned friend and correct him on that point. The instructions had been received by his partner, Mr Fisher, at their office, and had been given him by the plaintiff personally, Mr Shapter in that case would withdraw his objection. Mr Pitt called

John Munro, who stated that he knew the plaintiff and the defendant. Witness had been appointed agent of the schooner Mary Van Every by the master, and in that capacity had collected freight anil rendered account of same to the master. The ship account had been settled by the payment of j< cheque for £9B 18s to the master on Thursday, October 31st. In consequence of learning the condition of the master, he went to the defendant on November 6th. The latter was keeping the Nelson Ale House. A conference took place between witness, Hatfield and the defendaut. Hatfield stated, in reply to witness that he had £7O left of the freight money, and that the sum was in the hands of the defendant, and Hatfield instructed the latter to hand the money to witness as responsible agent. Blackburn acknowledged having received the sum of £7O, and in a general way referred to au account he had against Hatfield for board, lodging, and refreshment, amongst which was an item for two bottles of champagne. Witness said that if the money were handed over, he would recognise any just and reasonable claim that Blackburn might have. . Blackburn stated that he had received the mouey from the mate, and refused to acknwledge witness in the matter. The following day witness produced a telegram from the owners, and upon that received £6O from Blackburn. Witness still claimed the balance of £lO, and took advice as to the proper steps to obtain its recovery. He saw Hatfield and accompanied him to Messrs Pitt and Fisher's office, where instructions were given in the presence of the captain and with his consent to institute the present proceedings. By Mr Shapter: I admit that the instructions to proceed with the case emanated as much from myself as from the captain. He was suffering a recovery, and appeared more anxious that the affair should be hushed up than that the money should be recovered. I was also anxious that exposure should be avoided, but I saw no possibility of getting the £lO without inviting publicity. I told the captain that unless the money were forthcoming he would he liable to an indictment for embezzlement. George Blackburn was then examined. He stated that he recollected receiving £7O from a man on behalf of Cantain Hatfield. He deposited the money in the bank. In consequence of representations made to him by Mr Munro, he paid over £6O on account of the captain. After having told Hatfield what had been done, the latter said that he had acted very wrongly, as Munro had no right to the money. The account produced amounting to £lO 5s is certified by the captain as correct. He certified to it on Nov. the Bth. The item £2 is for an order given to a party named Fagg. The balance represents board, lodging, Ac, supplied to Hatfield. The letter produced was written by Hatfield last night. He requested therein that witness should take charge of a quadrant and sextant as security for the payment of a further debt of £2 10s, which he promised to remit from Hokitika. Hatfield left for Hokitika by the Charles Edward last night. Mr Shapter then made his address, and Mr Pitt replied. His Worship gave judgment for the defendant with costs. He stated that the only matter for him to consider was whether the amount withheld by the defendant was fair and reasonable. In support of its bciDg so there was

the written statement of Hatfield, and nothing had been produced to impugn the validity of that document. Hatfield v "Wilson.—Claim for £lB. Summons not served.