DISTRICT COURT, HAMILTON. Yesterday.-Before His Honour District Judge Smith.)

Waikato Times, Volume XX, Issue 1654, 10 February 1883, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT , HAMILTON. Yesterday.- Before His Honour District Judge Smith.)

Congratulatory. Hi^ Honol'k tooU.his seat on the bench at 3 o'clock. Mr W. Macgregor Hay said : — Before proceeding with the ordinary business of the Court lie had been requested by the members of the profession in this district, as senior member of the bar, to congratulate His Honour on his elevation to the position of District Judge. He trusted that the cordial relations hitherto existing between the bench and the bar would be maintained. It was a source of great pleasure to the bar, as it must be to His Honor that his appointment had not been consequent on the demise of the former occupant of the office, but that it was owing to his predecessor's translation t!fe& higher spherp of duty. He was requpted to state that the members of the bjir would always be willing to assist His Honour to the besc of their ability in the discharge of the onerous duties of his |wst. " ! ; ' ' His' Honour thanked the bar cordially for the kind words they had addressed him through Mr Hay. He, was aware that the duties he was called on to i perform were by no means easy, but he' felt sure that in carrying them out he always have the ready assistance q£, the bai\ He would do his utmost to follow in the footsteps of his ■ predecessor"; though he knew that in coming after puch a man as Judge Macdoiiald he • had a difficult duty. He again thanked ;thom very much for their kind address." ') '[' In bankruptcy. " ••> In re Robert Harris, Mr,, p'Neill applied m foe an m order '6f 'discharge., Granted. - ••■ »- ! : " /""f^ ,• litre W. J;.BtTTOLiF^K,'-Mr O'^ir/aW-j plied, for-a'*!mllajrerderl . 'which/ was, granted. V".!"/. .'ii J«r<;AßCHißAE»'MrLi)iß;MfGreBha,m's Applicatiohfornn'oi'der^of'diachdr'g'e was snwtod; — n^rranHsr^—i-^^ 1 "~>*~ rr^™-~ oivu oases. , , , , . n >x , «, The om'lwjW*,: UfimiljjtfkAfrt

I Gwynnetli v. 5r This was an action for £36 Bs, 'damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff by reason of tlie' de'fedd|iut havnig wrongfully converted to>'M» own use a-pack-saddle*.—Mr WM. fiay appeared for^ plaintiff, and Mr T.'Cottei"(of Auckland) for defendant. --AfiM having slwrtjy opened tU' case^ til Hay oalled *Mr Gwynneth, who gave evidence to the effect; jthatf lhe-}h|ul;early! in» June, 1881, Jeft a pack-saddle at an ) accommodation house at Waotu, kept by a native called Arek'atera ; that on calling for the saddle bn the 23rd June, he was informed that jt had been taken by Mr Cook, the defendant. He 'wrote to Cook, but the saddle was' not returned until four ldays afterwards ' He met 1 MiCook about a month afterwards, and he .admitted having' taken, the saddle arid promised to pay. a reasonable sum for in.convenience and loss occasioned to ■plaintiff.' .He was delayed in proceeding' to Tokorangi for 4 days on account of it. He' claimed £8 8s for himself- for 4 days ; £2- 8s for assistant, 4 days; £5 12s for four men ; £8 for four horses ; and £12 for hotel expenses ; total, £36 Bs. Arekatera Te Wera deposed to the saddle having been left at his house jby plaintiff some time in June, 1881, aiid to defendant coming to him and asking ior it. He refused to give it, and said he could not consent to its being taken. ]Cook, however, took it, and said he would return it in a day or two>— Wiari gave evidence as to having heard Arekatera refuse the saddle. lie left before the conversation was quite finished; — Arthur Stubbing stated that he had received the saddle from Cook's camp, and had shortly afterwards sent it to plaintiff. — Francis Ewen also gave evidence. • —This closed plaintiffs case.— Mr Cotter briefly addicsscd the Court, stating that the defence was that one Walton had taken < tllo saddle, and not defendant. He called defendant, who said lie had no recollection of the conversation sworn to by Arekatera and Wiari, and denied having 'promised to pay the plaintiff for loss -occasioned by his taking the packfsaddle. He said Mr Gwynneth might have shifted the camp without the packsaddle. Chaika Tuck piovecl that defendant was' in the employ of the Patetcre Land and, Settlement Company, as also was Walton. They were paid by the company. Walton was not in Cook's employment. , — (Jcorge. Walton stated that he had charge of Cook's camp equipage on acuount of the Pateteve 'Company, and it was his duty to shift camp. He borrowed the saddle in question from a native named Napia at Arekatera 's house. He shifted two loads of camp equipage, and the third load was taken by defendant and, another man. ■He heaid no conversation between Arekatera and defendant about the saddle. Defendant knew a saddle was wanted, and told him to borrow one or knew of his doing so. — This closed the case for the defence.— Mr Cotter then addressed the ' Court for the defence, and contended that there , was an absolute denial of the evidence given by the natives, and that Walton was the person who was responsible. Defendant was only his fellow-servant, and could not be made responsible for his act. — MiHay for the plaintiff stated that there was ample proof of a conversion by the defendant. Ihe native testimony was uncontradicted except by defendant, who was an interested poison. There was no evidence that Walton did not allude to another saddle altogether. It was quite possible for Walton to have boi rowed a saddle from Nepia, and defendant to have taken another from Arekatera. Defendant's evidence' hail been considerably shaken on cross-examina-tion, and he swore to nothing positively. His evidence did not compare favourably with that of Mr Gwynneth, who A\as evidently the witness of truth. He trusted His Honour would have no difficulty in arriving at a judgment for plaintiff,' and ior the full amount. His Honour reserved judgment until 9 o'clock this morning.