RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume VII, Issue 1046, 14 February 1873, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Tuesday, Febbuahy 11. (Before Joseph Giles. Esq., K.M.j Burke v. Burke —Claim for maintenance. Order fiiade for 15a weekly. LARCENY. "William Forbes, charged by Ann Connelly, with having on the 31st December last, stolen a tent, fly, blanketa, and sundry articles , of clothing, heR property, pleaded not guilty. Complainant deposed that she had lived near the beach in a hpt partly built of wood and partly of calico. Accused had been there on the evening in question with a man named Geordie Bill, and had shouted for her, giving her money to fetch beer two or three times. On the last occasion he had given her a J2l note, and she went away to fetch more beer, but on her return the prisoner was gone, the roof of the but stripped off, and all her clothes and blankets carried away, and she had never seen her property since. Joseph Cooper, living near the hut ■of complainant, remembered passing by on the evening in question and observing some men rolling up the •calico roof. A minute .or two after saw a man pass by the door of witness' house, carrying a white bundle and goring in the direction of the Orawaiti, hut witness could not identify the .man as being the accused. James Whelan also lived near the hut of complainant. Knew the {prisoner. Saw hi in on the 31st Dec. walking away from the direction 'of the hut with a white bundle rolled up, but the night was top dark to permit ■of witness discerning it exactly. As accused passed the door of witness' house he asked witness if he had seen a man natu&d Tom lately. Witness could swear positively it. was accused who spoke to him. "William liawlin was with com, • plainant and accused in the hut, had some beer with them and afterwards left them together. Knew that Forbes had a tent and fly of his -own. Constable W. N. Meredith had arrested accased at Deadman's Creek on Ist February, having been unable •previous to that date to find him. On making the arrest accused said "I know what you want me for, it's all right." Witness then cautioned him, and accused said "he had all the things, but complainant had run away with £3 of his, and it was a case of . bilk." By accused: Tou said distinctly you had the things. Accused called two witnesses to prove that he had, on or about the time of the alleged robbery, possessed a tent and fly of his own. He admitted that he had gone into the house and paid for various drinks, but that the bundle he had carried away was nothing but stores he had previously purchased for himself and mates. The Court said the evidence of theft was clear, and committed accused to three months' imprisonment with hard labor. CIVIL CASES. E. J. O'Gonor v. John Temperley,— Claim for £l6 2s 6d. Mr Fisher put in a telegram received from Mr Pitt on behalf of plaintiff, asking for postponement of .hearing on plea of objection to bill of particulars, and lack of time to prepare -defence. Plaintiff objected thereto, and the Court ruled that no sufficient reason had been shown. Plaintiff produced agreement for sale of interest, in a building, formerly standing on the Esplanade, for £2O, but which agreement defendant J had failed to fulfil, except so far as pa3'ment of one monthly instalment of £5, leaving £ls still owing, in addition to £1 2s 6d, advertising charges. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed and costs 19s. Hugh Neil v. John Sheldon. Adjourned for service of summons. Patterson v. Allison.—Claim for £4 12$, rent of cottage. Adjourned for service of summons. Whyte and Pirie v, Charles Croawell:—Claim for £lO 14s. Goods sold and delivered. Defendant admitted indebtedness for portion of claim only. Plaintiff deposed that all the goods were Bupplied to the defendant personally or to men in his employ, in his presence, and bj his verbal request. The men had afterwards paid for their shares of the goods and the balance remaining was for goods supplied defeudant alone. Defendant pleaded that a proper bill of particulars had not been rendered him. Judgment was given for £lO Bs, being full amount claimed, less 6s for an item supplied to partnership accouut and not to defendants private account. Costs 19a. Whyte and Pirie v. Daniel Ward.— Claim for £4. Goods sold and delivered. No appearance of defendant, Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed and costs, 9s. Whyte and Pirie r. David M'Hugh. ■—Claim for £7 6s. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff for full amount claimed and costs 9s. Lawrence v. Stringer:—Claim for £6 10s. Value of chest of drawers and washing stand. Plaintiff said defendant had purchased the articles, and promised payment on bis return trip down river, but had afterwards refused to fulfil his promise. Daniel Quadri gave evidence as to being present when conversation occurred between the parties as to

sending an express to plaintiff's house for the articles. Witness rode in the express van with plaintiff, and brought the goods to Stringer, who took delivery at his own house. By defendant: Never heard on what terms the goods were purchased. Did not hear the plaintiff ask defendant to take the goods for fear plaintiff's wife should chop them to pieces. Defendant pleaded that he had taken the goods at the urgent request of plaintiff, who, because of a row with his wife, wanted to part with his furniture and leave her. Defendant had offered to take the goods and pay for them by instalments, a little at every trip from up river, but plaintiff had afterwards insisted upon immediate payment. Judgment for amount claimed and costs 10s. Order being made for payment by instalments of one pound per week. Powell and Co. v. W. Morris.— Claim for £1 4s sd. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount claimed, and costs. Powell and Co. v. Croawell and Jacobsen.—Withdrawn. R. Rowlands v. Eugene Joseph O'Conor.—Mr Fisher for defendant. Claim for £8 10s. Goods alleged to be sold on partnership account to O'Conor and Croawell. Defendant pleaded not indebted. In evidence, plaintiff said that on Bth April last he had supplied Croawell with a lot of oars for use in a cargo boat, and that Croawell had told him to book them to O'Conor and Croawell. On the same day defendant had also spoken about their requiring the articles, and on the 16th July following, defendant had paid him the bill. Afterwards Croawell got a tarpauling and other articles, but on plaintiff applying to O'Conor for payment he had refused, and denied having any partnership connections with Croawell. Plaintiff had supplied the goods on the;iinderstanding that defendant and Croawell were partners in the boat, and had not at any time received notice of dissolution of such presumed partnership. By Mr Fisher: Defendant never told me that he and Mr Seaton had sold a boat to Croawell, nor did he explain at the time of paying the first account why he had individually asked for it. The only reason for charging defendant with the second account was that he had paid the first. The bill produced made out to O'Conor and Seaton is in my handwriting, but Ido not recollect writing it. I must have done so casually at O'Conor's request, when he was settling the bill, as first made out to O'Conor and Croawell. All the goods charged therein are booked in O'Conor's name. Had never asked Croawell for any explicit information as to his standing with O'Conor, after the first goods were sold. The goods entered in the books to Croawell and Co., were as I understood, supplied to Croawell. and O'Conor, and not to Croawell and Jacobsen. Mr Fisher applied for a nonsuit, on the plea that plaintiff had not satisfied himself as to the further liability of defendant after the first payment of the account made out to O'Conor and Seaton. The Court ruled that there was as yet no case for a nonsuit, as the first partnership had been recognised, and no rebutting evidence was yet produced as to its subsequent dissolution. Mr Fisher then called the defendant who deposed that he and John Seaton had sold a cargo boat and gear to Croawell, and had allowed him, as an expert, to choose such articles as were needed to complete the outfit of the boat. Witness afterwards paid the bill for the goods supplied by plaintiff. This was previous to July, and on doing so witness had explained to plaintiff that he wished the bill made out in his own and Seaton's names, as they wanted to charge Croawell with the amount, also explaining the transaction of the purchase of the boat Fairwind, and the re-sale of the same to Croawell. After this Croawell had to keep the boat fully equipped, and in good repair and pay for it by instalments. Had never been partners with Croawell or permitted him to use his name as assumed partner. By plaintiff: The good supplied froth 18th April to June 29th were all used to fit out the boat, and were not bought on a running account. It was optional with myself and Seaton whether we supplied them to Croawell or not. Croawell wa3 not on terms with us to receive one-third of the profits himself, and myself and Seaton to receive the other two-thirds until the boat was paid for. The price was fixed at first, and it was not to be increased or diminished whatever the profits might have been. The Court ruled that the case had been fully answered. The plaintiff had not shown sufficient grounds for assuming that partnership still existed. The alteration of the bill first presented, making it chargeable to Seaton aud O'Conor, being conclusive evidence that no partnership between Croawell and O'Conor existod. Judgment for defendant, with costs 51s. a v J. K. Grant v. William White.— Claim for £1 10a. No appearance of defendant. Plaintiff proved personal service of summons. Judgment for full amount claimed, and costs 9s. J. K. Grant v. James Knight.— Claim for £l. Debt admitted, but set off filed for £1 4s, being a charge for taking instructions for re-erecting a house, and waiting on plaintiff on various occasions to consult on the subject. Claim for set off disallowed

as frivolous, and judgment given for plaintiff for £l, and costs 9s. J. K. Grant v. Edward Lammas.— Claim for£l 10s. Board and lodging. No appearance of defendant. Plaintiff proved personal service of summons. Judgment for amount claimed, and cost 9s.