RESIDENT MAQISTRA TE'S COURT HAMILTON.

Waikato Times, Volume XXX, Issue 2467, 3 May 1888, Page 2

RESIDENT MAQISTRA TE'S COURT HAMILTON.

Yksterdat.— (Before Captain Jackson, K.M.) ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. W. H. Kelly, carter, of Hamilton East, laid an information against F. H. Lees, sewing-machine agent, for using abusive language to him on the Hamilton bridge on 25th April. The defendant stated that he and a friend were on horseback standing on the bridge talking, when the informant passed along with his dray, a coach coining up behind. His friend's horse became restive and plunged. He asked Kelly to pull up, which he refused to do. His horse avoiding the other one, collided with the driy, damaging his saddle-bag and girth, and nearly injuring his log. He called Kelly a drunken fool, and a Hamilton swiper, and said that he would throw him out of his cart. The court thought that was very uncomplimentary language. Some further evidence was taken of an unimportant character, and the court dismissed the case without costs. WRONGFUL DISTRAINT. CHAS. HINTON V. J. FOUKKST AND OTHERS. —This case was partly heard on April 4th, and was brought for wrongful conversion of a stack of oats. Mr Gresharn for plaintiff, Mr Hay for defendant.—Godfrey Collins was called for the plaintiff, and gave evidence of the seizure of the stack for rent on account of F. Forrest. Plaintiff's brother did not tell him when making the inventory that tho stack was plaintiff's. This closed plaintiff's case.—Mr Hay addressed the Court on the non-suit points arising in the case. He pointed out that if Chas. Hinton (tho plaintiff) had acquired the right to grow the crop of oats from Job Hinton (the tenant), ho acquired an interest in tho land, and there being no memorandum in writing proved, an action could not be. brought. If, on the other hand, the plaintiff relied on having purchased the stack as a chattel, the sale was void as complying with the StatutoofFrauds.under which the agreement for every sale of goods over the value of £10 was required to be in writing. There was also a good case for the defendant on tho merits. The plaintiff had not proved his case, and it was absurd tj ask the Court to believe that the right to grow this crop was given away for nothing. Upon the grounds he had stated ho contended that the judgment of the court should be a non-suit. The Court intimated that it would like to hear what defendant had to eay,-=-Mr Hay then called Mr Forrest, whose evidence was to the effect that no claim had been made upon him for the stack by the plaintiff until the day of sale, and that he believed it was the tenant's property, and that the sale was an afterthought.—C. Perkins also gave evidence as to a conversation, and the position of the stack. This closed defendant's case.—Mr Hay intimated that he intended to rely on tho points raised by him, and would not address the court further. Mr Gresham spoke at some langtlj i« support of the plaintiff's case. He contended that the balance of evidence was in favour of the stack being plaintiff's property, and that Job Hinton hold exclusive possession of the property, and that the possession of the plaintiff, if any, was not sufficient to make the stack distrninable.—The Court decided, irrespective of tho law points raised, that the plaintiff had not proved his case, and that in the conflict ef evidence, he must believe tho defendant's in preference to the plaintiffs testimony. Judgment for defendant, costs, £1Q-