R.M. COURT CAMBRIDGE.

Waikato Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2030, 11 July 1885, Page 3

R.M. COURT CAMBRIDGE.

Yurmnw -(More Mr H. W. Xmthcmft, K.M., .wcl Mi'-t-^ A. Clements andThoi. l'». Lewi-«, J.l' )

run hoksk r\n. c\^. Tito**. Jackson was charged on the informit'onofth'j police, with rutting the h.iir off the t.vil of » horse, the property of John Rimciman at Cambridge, on tin' 7th of M.iy, doing damage thereby to the extent Mr Hay appeared for defendant and pleaded not guilty. In doing so he wi-hdl to explain the nature of the otfenen with which hn client was charged. He h.id given notice that evidence of having committed this act would not be required. Th.it they admitted, but in admitting the offence ho claimed they had a perfect light to Hettle it. It whs not a criminal offence, but only a- quisi criuiinal offence. John Kuncunan, called by Mr Hay, deposed : — Ho saw the defendant some day in June in nd. He (defendant) «aid he was sorry for what had happened and was willing to pay for the damage. When he met defendant he a«ked him what ho was going to do about the hone. Defendant offeied to pay the costs. He told him he wanted £10. Finally agreed to take 17 ICN, but the matter was then in the hands of the police. (Jot the £7 10s on Tuesday last. Did not know that the money had been Kent before the last court day. Was told that the money had been sent to him before the present information was laid. Befote the present information v/,w laid (hint court day) had a*ked the constable to withdraw the information. By Constable Brennan. The information had been laid before I asked you to withdraw the information. The witness was then examined at some length by the K.M., as to ceitatn statements lespecting a settlement made by him on tho pipvious comt d.iy. Their Worships dismissed the case. In doing so the R.M. s.ud had tho informant whim in the bo* last com t day Hpoken straightfoiwaidly in giving his evidence, an a mm should do when on oath, this prosecution would not have bmn g ni • on with. He asked him then if he knf w what the tnoiiov (respecting which he had leceived a telegiam from Mr Hay) lying at the Humilton P»wt Office was foi, and lie then distinctly led the bench to be hove that he did not. He told him that tho reason he asked him this w,ii that tf he had settled tho cose before the information woh laid the matter would be quashed, hut now, when he was confronted with another witne**, who heard him nuke certain statements outside tho comt, lie was willing to tell a different story. When Much witnesses an the inform mt give evidence it wan hird fm tho bonuh to know when they got the truth or when thoy did not. With such evidence the ouit could not b-3 expected to do justice. Ho thought it would oa better for the police in such caics to make the poison who complans l.tv the information, for then they would gdt coats ay*inst the informant.

KKHKUIV KK!'\ V. W. .1. fl.Nrhlt. Thoir Woislups guAe judgment in this enw. They found the following facts : -(l)That H'liitet sold .w agent or Hervant of the HLeiiff and fur comminMon only. (2) He wan not employed to icccivo the money or Rive receipts till after the sale. (3) Th<* articlon were ne\er in his po-i-se-ision oi undei his control, but in the possession and under the control of the Sheriff (i) The Sheriff* bailiff gave deli\ery to the purchase™ at *ala (.">) No actual delivery of the harrows to any one was proved. (0) The plaintiff did notdeni<ind the harrows fioin Hunter but did from the Sheriff. Xonnuited with out-*, £4 17. Mr Hay .said he did not but know that he should appeal and in that case the judgment would Huit him ekually well if not better. It wad hw intention to bring other canes where the evidence of delivery would be more complete. Hedid not know whether thesj cases would be brought into this couit or the Supieme Court. His Worship isai'l it would be no uso bringing thoin before him after the judgment which he had delivered, that is, if the evidence were the H.ime. He suggested the District Court. Mi Hay n,nd he hoped to bo able to contradict the auctioneer by proving the delivery. They had been rather hui prised with the line of defence taken the la.st time. He would give notice before next court d.iy an to whether the other cases would bo brought.

Mmsley v. Tuinbull, tl.um Uw (id. Judgment for plaintiff with cost-i, 23s fid. This wan .ill the bimne-s.

Yes ! It is certainly true. Ask any of your friends who h.i\e purchased there. Garlick and Cranwell have numerous unasked for and very favourable commendations from country customers <n their excellent paikinjfof Furniture, Crockery, and Glass, &c. Ladies any gentlemen about to furnish should remember that Garlick and Cranwell'* is thi Cheap Furnishing Warehouse oi Auckland. . Furniture to suit all classes ; also Carpets, Floor Cloths and all House Neceitaries. If your new house is nearly finished, or. you are KOtn? to get married, visit Garlick .ind fcranwpll, Queen street and Lome street, Auckland . Intending purchasers can bave a catalogue MO free.