SUPREME COURT-CIVIL SITTINGS.-Tuesday. (Before His Honor Sir G. A. Arney, Knt., Chief Justice.)

Waikato Times, Volume VIII, Issue 419, 21 January 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT-CIVIL SITTINGS.-Tuesday. (Before His Honor Sir G. A. Arney, Knt., Chief Justice.)

t. *fOLht. — Thii was eTffaction 10 recover £1000 damage* for prosecution. — Mr Roes and Mr Joy appeared fortnfc plaintiff, and Mr Hesketh and Mr Jameu BuasejLlfor the dof^fant — T) lfk fo""Tfllff grrf thf y"" prepared for the jury :— (I.) Did the defendant on or about tbo 3rd April last, at the township o.f West Hamilton in (hft northern district, falsely, maliciously, and without rea«>n« able a^d_pjoba.bk.c%»i9xAppe«r. haloffi oneJffiilliam iliahala* Searanok*, resident magistrate for the district of Waikato. and charge the plaintiff" with having feloniously stolen, t*jwf fet and disposed of one bull-calf, of the value of £5, of the goo§Nk and chattels of the .defendant?— (2). Did the defenda^iy upon such charge, procure the aaid William Nicholas Bei*r • ancke, as such justice, to grant his warrant forthwith to apprehend the plaintiff and bring him before one or moiro justices, to answer to the laid infororationrand to fee further dealt with 'according to law F — (ft ) Did tbe defendant under and by virtue of the said warrant cause the plaintiff to H arrested, and to be imprisoned fora long time, and aft<j|S wards to be brought before the said justice and one It. WJ? Hammond, a J. P., and did -thr justices having beaTd thjf said charge dismiss tbe same and discharge the plaintiff out of custody ?i~(4) 'Hat the plaintiff by reimofc of,tbe prenSie • been- injured in his reputation, and suffered pain of bodjpand mind, and been prevented from attending to his business and incurred expenses in defending himself oh the eaidfibarge and to t>btuin release from tbe said imprisontrfetiff— "(6 ) What danmgea, if any, is ,lbe plaintiff entitled to recover from tbe defendant P — Mr Joy hovine opened the case to the jury, 'called Walter ('hitty, ioe plaintiff, who was examined by Mr £cci, and deposed that defendant" was hid Erst.Cousin. In consequence of letters written Lome by tie defendant about the new country he was* residing in, witi.ess was induced to come out to the colony, and arrived in Oct. I£#2. He went up to Hamilton on his Cousin's invitation, nt»o lived with, him, assisting him in tbe farming ojjerations, until Oct., 1873. In that month, witne-a and the defendant agreed with Capt. St«ele to purchasefrom him a farm in tbe Waikalo the property of Mr BavW Comrie, of Dunedin, for £1,800. When the transaction ti« deckled upon, witness paid Captaiu Sterlr £30Oby a d»»ft en ois fbther in England, and «lio defendant paid £15 for commlslibn, and afterward* contributed thirty or forty cattle to the value of £100 towards stocking the farm. Hie balance of the purchase-money, £1,600, was to be advanced by Captain Strele on mortgage at 8 per cent. An agreement of partnership was at tbe same time drawn up. The term was to be five years, both parties were to find an equal amount of cash, the plaintiff was to manage the farm and receive £76 the for first year. Both were to be agreeable to all sales and purchases. After October witness conducted transactions for himself and tbe defendant as partners. In February « itness sold five calves to aMr Wood, a butcher. He disposed of them with the defendants sanction. Shortly sfter they were sold, one of the calves returned to the farm to its mother. Wood did not claim it, and with bis consent witness afterwards exchanged tbe same calf for a heifer calf, the property of his father inlaw Mr Hunt. The bull-calf was branded with' Hunt's brand, the heifer calf witk the brand of the firm of Chitty aud Jolly, viz-, D.C. In the management of the farm it was witness's duty to exchange or sell stcck for the benefit of the firm ' The exchange was a favorable one. The defendant on seeing the bull-calf in Hunt's yard kicked up a row, and some hign worda wero used. Hunt said the exchange had been fair and above board, and he would not give the calf up. lid said the defeodant might go to law about it. Witness told the defendant then of tbe exchange for the first time. That was on the Ist April. On the 4th April witness was arrested by a constable. It was a holiday , and there was a large number of people pnsent. He was admitted to bail, and finally the case was^iUmißied* He had received information that his relatives at home had heard of ' his having been accused of a felony. — The witness was crossj examined by Mr Hesketh at length as to various transactions- ; while he was acting hs manager. He ceased to manage the I farm about the middle of March, iv consequence of an adI vertiscment put in the newspapers by tbe defendant that : the partnership had been dissolved and t he affaiis would beI submitted to arbitral ion. He had exchanged cows with j other people — one with a man named Mullens when he ie- ; ceived 30a besides, and <ne with a man mimed Kinsley, j receiving money us well. Told the defendant vf both transj actions. Ihe arbitration was not settled when he was arrested. Mr Jolly 'a father had remitted the amount of the draft on witness's father, but he thought his father paid it fitst, In October 1873, witness told the defendaut that he expected his father would honor the draft ior £300, He also said that he expected £1,000 from home. The defendI ant endorsed tbe draft, The commencement of the partnership did not depend upon the honoiing the draft. The document produced bore his fathers signature, and it ap* ; peared from that Mr Jolly sen., paid the draft. OnHikj^t 12th March, the defendant accused tutness of having "dei ceived him, and ordered him away— Mr Hesketh cross ex- | amined tbe witness at considerable length, with a view to show thithis conduct generally, and iv connection with the exchange of the calf, justified the dtfendant in arrest- ! ing him. At the conclusion of tbo witness's examination ( the further hearing of the case was adjourned until tbo I following morning at 10 o'clock,