MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2101, 29 January 1908, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

TUESDAY. JANUARY 28. (Before Mr W. A. Barton, S.AI.) ALLEGED PERJURY. Tho case in which Joseph Burke, licensee oi the Record Reign Hotel, was charged with perjury was called on. Mr Stock represented accused and Mr J. W. Nolan conducted the prosecution. G. J. A. Johnston, clerk ol' tho S.M. Court, said he remembered the hearing of the charge of assault brought by ono llnrdy against the present accused. Tho hearing took place about Decomber 4th. Accused was duly sworn and made a statement. Mr Stock, during his examination, said to accused: “You had occasion to dismiss the barmaids” and accused replied “Yes.” Tho Bench asked, “When did you dismiss tho barmaids” and accused roplied, “On Monday.” That Monday would be December 2nd. Constable Irwin, who was Court orderly on tho day of the hearing, ga-c similar evidence. Could not remember any number of barmails l oil g mentioned. Ida Dunlop, one of the hannarJs said sho had been in accused’s employ for sixteen months. Loft his employ on December 2nd as a result of words with accused on tho previous Saturday. The troublo arose over witness refusing to serve drunken men. On the Monday morning accused paid witness off and said ho did not want her any more. Remained about tho house till about 4 o’clock the samp afternoon. The other barmaid at tlio house, Sadie Watson, went into tho bar at 9 o’clock on the Monday morning and remained there till about 4 p.m. Witness wont out in the morning, and again at lunch time with Miss Watson. Both went to the police station to see Detective Maddoni. Miss Watson returned to tho bar about 3 o’clock. At about 4 o’clock, while witness was speaking to Miss Watson, Constable Wales arrived and handed both of them in tho caso Hardy v. Burke. Miss AY atson at first refused to take her subpoena and said she intended to leavo her position. She left the bar, but accused asked her to return to her duties. .Miss YVatson said, “No; I am going; I’m going to pack up my things.” She then went to her room, and Constable YVales, at the request of accused, followed her to try to got tier to resume her work, but Miss Watson again refused. As soon as Miss YVatson had packed her things .she and witness left the hotel together. YYTien witness was discharged she was paid a -week’s wages in advauce. In the course of his evidence in tho case Hard:© v. Burke accused said lie had occasion to dismiss both his barmaids. Sadie YVatson, also lately .employed as a barmaid at the Record Reign Hotel, said she bad been employed for about eight or nine weeks. Left on the afternoon of Monday, December 2nd. Miss Dunlop was discharged the same morning. YY’itness was working all dav up till 4 o’clock. YY’ituess gave evidence, similar to that given by tho previous witness, as to leaving accused’s employ, and as to accused’s evidence in the assault case. Accused did not dismiss her on December 2nd. YY’itness and Miss Dunlop were tho only barmaids employed hv accused. Alice Proctor; general servant, stated that on Dec. 2nd she was engaged at the Record Reign Hotel. Could not say if Miss Dunlop did any work on December 2nd, but worked till between 3 and 4 o’clock. Saw Mrs Burke and Miss Dunlop in Miss Watson’s room, the latter being engaged in packing her box. This closed the case for the prosecution. • . ... Mr Stock said he did not desire to address tho Court at that stage. Accused reserved his defence, and was committed for trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court, bail being allowed, self in £2O and two sureties of £lO each. IDLE AND DISORDERLY. Adelia Hastie was. charged with being an idle and disorderly person, in that sho had no visible lawful means of support. She pleaded not guilty. Constable Irwin said he had known accused for the past eighteen months, during which time she had been in and out of prison. During the past month had watched her movements closely, and had often found her about tlio streets in a drunken condition lato at aright or early in the morning. At other times lie had seen her in company with lialf-drunken men. Within the past month she had done no work. Constable Pratt .said that when ho arrested accused on the previous evening she was very drunk. During the six months witness had known accused she had done no work. For the past month accused had been sleeping in the open-air. Mary McLaren, called by accused, gave evidence that accused lived with her for a week about a fortnight ago. By Detective Maddern: Did not know that previous to coming to her place accused had been sleeping in a poplar pateb. near Kahutia street. Had had liquor in town with accused, but not often. So far as witness knew accused had no home. Her husband was working in the country. The S.M. said, accused failed to prove that she had any means of sunport. The presence of such people as accused in the recreation grounds of the town, which accused had been proved to have been frequenting, had th effect of stopping people using tho grounds as they should. For her own good, accused would ho sentenced to three months* imprisonment with hard lab THREATEN IN G BEHAVIOR. Paratene and Richard YVilliams were charged with having on December 23rd behaved in a threatening manner on the'train from Gisborne to Puha in the vicinity of Waihirere. Both accused pleaded guilty, Detective Maddcrn said that accused had caused trouble* in the train, and in tho end they had a fight on the Ormond station. Tho S.M. said that as this was the first offence of accused they would only be fined £l, with costs' against YVilliams of £1 10s and against Paratene £1 ss. , DRUNKENNESS.

, Adelia Hastie, for drunkenness, was fined £1 with 2s costs, in default 4 days’ imprisonment. DISPUTE REGARDING A TENDER Judgment in the case of Webb-and t Sons (Mr Finn) v. Williams and Slierratt (Mr T. Alston Coleman) was given as follows: —This is an action to recover from defendants the sum of .£ls 8s 6d upon the following statement of claim:—The plaintiffs say: 1. That on the 21st day of May last the defendants caused an advertisement to bo inserted, in the Poverty Bay Herald, a newspaper published in Gisborne, inviting tenders for the erection of a brick building in Lowe street, Gisborne, for tliem. 2. The general conditions for all tenderers provided (inter alia) that in the event of the defendants not accepting any tender within 31 days they sluill pay as compensation to lowest tenderer the sum of one quarter per cent on amount of tender, bub such amount shall not exceed £ls 15s, and not loss than £1 Is. 3. It lias been agreed between the parties that the said term of 31 days mentioned in the sa.id conditions shall be deemed to have elapsed so as to enable this action to lie brought without waiting for the expiration of that period. 4. On the 3rd day of June, 1907. seven persons or firms, being contractors and builders, tendered for the erection of the said brick building, including the plaintiffs, whose tender being £6176 was the lowest. 5. The defendants have not accepted any of the said seven tenders. Wherefore the plaintiffs, as the lowest tenderers,, claim from the defendants compensation of one-quarter per cent on the amount of tlioir tender, namely the sum of £ls 8s 6d. The question of the validity of the tender of plaintiffs having been settled by His Ho-

| mu- Mr Justice Donniston, 1 do not ' think it necessary for me to further consider the'question, being bound by the ruling of the Supreme Court. Tho only question therefore to ho decided by me is whether any of tlio tenders lodged in accordance with defendants’ advertisement of 21st of May, 1907, wore accepted by defendants. 1 have read carofully the authorities quoted, and have come to the conclusion that there was uo acceptance on the part ol the dolon,hints of any of tho tenders, ami that being so, plaintiffs are entitled to recover from defendants the amount 1 claimed. Judgment accordingly, with costs of Court £2 7s. ’Mr Coleman applied for leave to appeal. His YVorsliip granted the application. ns he thought it was a ease in which lie should grant leave to appeal.