R.M. COURT, CAMBRIDGE. Friday.—(Before Mr H. W. Northcroft, R.M.)

Waikato Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2131, 6 March 1886, Page 2

R.M. COURT, CAMBRIDGE. Friday.— (Before Mr H. W. Northcroft, R.M.)

CIVIL CASKS. W. C. AND S. N. Co. v. J L\mb.— Claim, £27 Os 11. Mr Whitakor for plaintiff, obtained adjournment to 30th April. Asher v. HoTE/riioMiNOS'.— Cl*in>. £10 Mr Dyer for plaintiff. Adjourned to 30th April. Same vJR. Blvkk.— Judgment summon*, £37 0* 7d. Mr Dyer for plaintiff. Adjourned to next sitting of the Court. Tb Mete v Haimona P atari.— Claim, £9 12-«. Adjourned to Hi April. Lewis ANi [SlMPadNv. Barkki.man. Claim, £4 4 8. appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff with £1 2» Gd coits. Mr Dyer asked for speedy execution as ho had rciison to believe defendant would " clear out." Application granted. J. S. Bucklanj> v. J. Boris. —Claim £16 16s on a dishonoured promissory note. Mr Dyer for plaintiff. Case allowed to stand over m order to obtain proof of signature to the bill. Samb v. J Belt..— Claim £7 2s. Mr Dyer for plaintiff. Adjourned to next sitting. Ciuig v. Hakhv.— (heard last Court day). His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff and said that the agreement between the two parties implied that the goods weie to be delivered in plamtiff'e shop, and .stated all authorities were in favour of that view. Wallace v. W. G. MoOann.— Claim £3 14s 2d. Mr Whitakor, for plaintiff, s.ud the defendant had not before last court day disputed the correctness of the account.— W. G. MeCann, sworn, said the signature in plaintiff's note- book as to quantity of oats threshed was his.— J. Gnodfellmv, commission agent, gave evidence as to demanding payment from defendant. He never said he wm the wrong party, but always put him off.— J. McCann, .brother of defendant, deposed that he arranged with Wallace's men for the threshing, and ho was the responsible party, as the oats were his. He knew his brother had been summonsed, but did not say anything about it. His brother worked on the farm which he leased from his mother. They were never in partnership. — Defendant said he never had anything to do with the oats, and ho did not leao Wallace's people to believe they were his.— Judgments for plaintiff, with cost* £1 5*. J. S. Bi'CKtANp v. J. McCajtn.— Cl.iim £15 18-.. Mr Dyer f<ir plaintiff.— W. Mitchell, Mr BuckUnd's <•' * '\ p e evidence as to liability. Defe.. 'I'd given a promissory note, which -N viand would not accept. £1 on account had since been paid.— Defendant admitted the debt, and said he did not know action was being taken.— Judgment for £14 18s, and costs £2 11s. J. IJwTtfNBTH v. W. 8. Wat.ker.— Claim £30 on a dishonoured promissory note.— Judgment for amount, and costs £2.

CRIMINAL CAisE. H. Reynolds v. G. Griosby, for larceny ofnfttecr. — Mr Macjjrppor Hay appeared for accused, and Mr Whitaker for proaecutor.—Mr Whitaker gave the facts of tho case, which were that a ceitain beast bc:iring the brand and ear-mark of the W.iik.ito Lund Association was sold at Ohaupo, and the proceeds had gone to the accused. The beast had b°en taken .aw.iy without the knowledge of tho pro-ecutor, and sold fur the benefit of the accused. That constituted the larcony. — Henry Reynolds, sworn, deposed that ho was manager f»r th». Waikato Land Association, and resided at Woodlands ncarTaupui. Knew accused, who re-odes at Tauwlnn 1 , and owns hind formerly belonging to the company. Fiist heard of this affair on leceipt of a lett»r fioin Mr McXicol. Saw Gngsby, the accused, and asked if he had sold a steer of their.*. He denied at first, bnt afterwards acknowledged taking it, and a^ked him to do all he could to get him off easy. Told him it was a very stnioust thing, and that he could do nothing till he had heard from the directors. He had been instructed to prosecute. Accused .siid he had taken it by mistake, as he thought it was hi". Tho custom on the .station ib to brand and ear • mark all cattle when they are weaned. The brand is PLA conjoined, and V cut off the point of the left ear. He knew the beast referred to. It had the company's brand and car mark. Accused never said his brand waa on the beast, and never complained we put our brand on his cattle. Valued the beast at £2 10s- — By Mr Hay : Can only say the beast is ours by the brand and ear mark. We are liable to mistakes in branding ' cattle like other farmers. Cannot absolutely say we have not made a mistake with thi.s one, although almost impossible, as all our cattle are branded when weaned. Theio may be exceptions! to that rule. Caunot say whether this is one of the exceptiniw. Saw accused four or five weeks ago at Tamvhare. No one else was present. He said he had taken Rome of his cattle to Ohaupo. Showed him brand and ear maik were so plain he could not have mistaken it for his own. Ho then acknowledged taking it, but said it must have been by mistake. Had no reason to disbslieve that statement—By Mr Whitaker: Do not think any one could mistake our brand and ear mark. Would have no difficulty in picking out a beast so marked from amongst others not so branded. There may be exceptions to branding at tho weaning, but have not known any for the last three or four years. A beast could not go long after weaning before it was branded. Judged from accused's manner that he took the beast knowingly. Accused said that rather than h ive any bother about it he (prosecutor) could deduct the value out of hid wages. Accused is employed by the c mpany off and on.— Hugh Hocken, on oath, said he mm a bWiinan employed by tho Waikato Land Association, and resided at New&tead. He was in charge of the htock. Knew the white steer in question since Ist June last. Was looking for it at that time. Knew it by its head, which was small. It is about two years old, and had bsen missing since the Ist June. Thought it was dead. He haw it again about a month ng».— By Mr Hay: It was not branded on the Ut of June, but before that. He did not know whose property it was at tho time it was branded. He did not know if it was bred from on , ' '>* company 1 * bulls.— Charles Huntei, • . .neer's assistant, gave evidence of the selling of the steer at Ohaupy on the 13th December last with some others, and the proceeds were handed to the accused.— By Mr Hay : There was not any attempt at concealment. The accused entered and sold the cattle publicly in the usual way.— Robert H. Cowley, farmer at Tamahere, deposed to buying the steer with two others in an odd lot. Took no notice of any brand", and only noticed them when Mr McNicol drew attention to the beast the day he sold it again at Ohaupo, a month later. Mr McNicol bought it on behalf of the Waikato Lund Company. Never took notice of the brands on cattle. Always knew them again by their looks.— John McNicol, auctioneer, employed by Mr J. S. Bucklaud, knew the steer. Bought it from last witness at Ohaupo on the 19th January for £2 10s. It reajmbled tho cattle, and had brand and oar mirk of the Waikrtlrt Land Association. Handed it over to Mr Reynolds.— By Mr Hay : Was in chatge at Newstead three years ngo. Allowed accused to havo the use of one of the company's Hereford bulls. A white cow might havo been put to it. If so, it would have, had a roau Hereford, Nevor knew a Hereford bull to got a whlto calf. —By Mr Whitiker : The be,ist in question is nearly a pure Shm thorn. — To the court: There was no Shorthorn bulls within a mile of accused's placo, and no chance of getting to them.— Thomas Took, labourer at Tauwhare, employed by the company, gave evidonce in identification of the steer.— Constable Breunan deposed to arresting the accused in the swamp at Tauwhare. On hearing the warrant, accused said he was not aware that the steer belonged to the company.—This closed the case for the prosecution.—Mr Hay addressed the Court on behalf of accused, and said in c>ses of this kind it was neoessary for tho Court to sta,te first if there was prima facie e\ idenoe to aend tha case to the Supreme Court. He contended a very important element of proof was wanting to establish the guilt of tho accuaed. He held there was no attempt to htcsl, and that the beast had boen sold in an open, straightforward manner. Mr Reynolds's evidence showed accused thought the beast wa* his, and that he did not doubt his belief or honesty. The evidence went to show that the company probibly branded accused's cattle. His witnessess would prove that this beast hnd been handfed by Mrs Grigsby.— Mr Whit-iker re pli«»d and said there were many instances of stolen cattle bbing driven on the highway, and openly sold by the robbers.— The Court had no. hesitation in acquitting the accused, as thri>e wav no evidence to support the intention to steal. Mr Reynolds's evidence bhowed there was no such intention.— Accused was discharged. ___^_ - __ — _^ _

Tenders are invited for erection of a bridge over the Pokamhenua, Wairangi road, near Rangiriri.