MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2651, 5 November 1909, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4

(Before Mr W. A. Barton, S.M.)

THEFT.

David Austin pleaded) guilty to having stolen a silver-mounted 'hair brush and comb, the property of a chambermaid at the Turanganui Hotel. The accused had put up at the hotel, and was arrested when on the point of leaving by boat with the stolen articles in his possession. He was remanded till Monday for the probation officer’s report. DRUNKENNESS. N

John Hamilton was fined £1 and 2s costs or 4 days’ for having been drunk after a previous conviction within the past six months. Oswald Shaw was fined 5s and 2,s costs for drunkenness, or 24 hours’, and £1 and 2s costs or 4 days’ for resisting the police. RESISTING THE POLICE.

In connection with. Shaw’s arrest Henry Eversfield, cook, was prosecuted for having incited the prisoner to resist arrest. Constable Johnston stated that when he arrested Shaw, Eversfield followed and urged the other not to go. Constable Dwyer said that the accused was following Shaw and telling lum not to go. The witness arrested Eversfield as he was about to strike Constable Johnston. . , . _ William Mullins, who assisted Constable Johnston, said that the accused called out, “that’s no way to take a man, jumping on his neck.” The constable bad not been violent with Shaw. Eversfield stated that be saw Shaw turned out of tlie Albion Hotel, and saw him arrested alter he had had a chance of. going away. The constable got him down, and bumped lus head on the pavement, and witness remonstrated. He did not incite the man to resist. The case was adjourned till to-mor-row to enable the accused to call evidence. Bail was allowed in personal recognisance of £lO ami two sureties of £o each. . , There was a second charge :i gain's c Eversfield of using obscene language, which was adjourned to inis morning, the accused stating that he wishcd = to fie tried by a iurv. Bail was fixed at £2O and two sureties of £lO each. MONETARY CLAIMS.

Judgment in undefended cases was ,oiven as follows: —John Jownlejf (M» T A Coleman) v. Jas. Robert Stokes and Ann Stokes, balance of claim £l3 l'2s Id and £1 13s 6d, costs, .oy default; Leonard Pearson v. Bert Lews. £4 6s and 5s costs, by default; Rees Bros, and Bright (Mr H. Bright) v. Oliver Goldsmith, £l7 14s and £1 13s costs, by default; L. D. Nathan and Co (Mr F. Nolan) v. Francis Turner Stacey, £lO 10s 7d and £1 Uis 6 costs, by consent; W. J. P. Gaudm v. Albert Peter Agnew, . £ls 12s and £1 5s 6d costs bv default; PI. T. Jones and W. J P. Gaudin v. J. Maddock, £ll 10s 4d, and £1 'lss 6d, by default: JUDGMENT SUMMONSES.

Orders were made in judgment summons cases as follows: —Michael lveady (Mr F. Nolan) v. Hilton Nesbitt Lysuar, immediate payment of £4l 13s 6d, or 30 days’ imprisonment: Mary Jane Kirk (Mr Sainsbury) v. Pnke Teera. payment of £3 11s within three months or 4 days’ imprisonment. A LONG-STANDING ACCOUNT.

William A. Hodge (Mr L. 'l. Barnard) sued Leslie Banks (Mr F. Nolan) for £l4 6s. Mr Burnard said that m the past the plaintiff bad lent the defendant money and given him meal* at various times. In 1903 the defendant, who was in poor circumstances, left the district for Wellington, Now, however, he had a farm and was m a good position, but had made no effort to T?ie y plaintiff gave evidence to the effect that the defendant hoarded with him at the time when he was proprietor of the Muriwai Hotel, and borrowed various sums of money. The plaintiff saw the defendant last at the end of 1902 before the latter went awaypromising to send the money he owed at the first opportunity. A summons was issued in July 1903. . The case was adjourned to the Jot li instant, for the production of the plaintiff’s books.

DISPUTE OVER, A CAB. George Pevreal, of Gisborne, (Mr. E H. Mann) sued David Bell, of Makaraka (Mr. Burnard) for possession of a cab, and £lO damages for wi-ongful seizu ure and detention of the same, lhe defendant confessed to £3 10s owing. Georg): l Pevreal, plaintiff said; lie bought tlie cab for £9 about 12 months ao-o. The cab was in bad repair, and he still owed £4 10s of the purchase money. Defendant agreed to put the cab in good order for £l3, and when witness took the cab away the sum of £6 10s was paid to. defendant on account. After running for a few months his horses got poor and he left off cab-driving. He had leased a place from Mr. Peryer and when he left he owed £6 arrears for rent. He told Peryer that he would leave the cab as security for debt. He also owed money to a carter, in town and gave liim the use of the cab at race time for £2. He came in from work on account of a letter he received from his wife. On going out again he called on defendant, who admitted selling the cab for £9 and that he had paid the £4 10s owing to Mr. Keady. Later he saw the cab in the yard of the horse bazaar out in the open. He again saw defendant who said that he (witness) was to get the cab back, and also a receipt for the £6 10 owing. To Mr. Burnard: He signed an agreement at defendant’s request, but he never promised defendant to leave the cab at his place. Defendant asked him to do so, but he refused as he had no horses. There was no other arrangement with (defendant regarding hiring the cab until it was mid for. Isabella Pevreal also gave evidence regarding the leaving of the cab with Peryer as security for the arrears of rent. She did not, at any time, authorise the defendant to remove the cab. She did not know of any arrangement

with defendant, for her husband to hire the cab. Michael lieady deposed to the conditional sale of the, cab to plaintiff from whom lie had received £4 10s. He saw defendant in June, and defendant said he ivus thinking of selling plaintiff up, and defendant took the cab to the auction mart and promised witness he would not be a loser. He had not been paid for the cab up to the present. To Mr. Burnard: He thought the average value of the. cab was about £lO to £l2. Walter Graham, coachbuilder, gave evidence as to the value of the cab. To anyone that bad use for it the cab was worth between £2O to £25. Albert A. Pen ford, cabman, said that when the cab was being used by defendant it was worth about £2O. During Carnival Week such a cab as plaintiff’s ought to make £2 10s a day clear. Walter Peryer gave evidence as to plaintiff having left the cab with him as security for rent owing. Henry Cur,fie, auctioneer, deposed to having brought the cab at auction for £lO. He considered it a bargain, and he refused £l6 a, few days later, as he wanted at least £2O for it. Defendant saw him later and said there was some trouble and wanted to purchase it back at a low figure. Witness agreed to re-sell to defendant for £ls, but he had never seen defendant since.

David Bell, the defendant, said that he had told - the plaintiff that before he could do the work he wanted possession of the cab, and would then hire it to him to be paid for and finally purchased by instalment. Eventually the plaintiff said ho would give £5 down when the job was finished, and pay the balance at £2 a month. Before the parties agreed the witness read oyer an agreement form on the lines indicated, laying special stress on the clause giving the defendant power to take possession if the instalments were not paid. The agreement was then signed. The instalments were not paid, however, and matters went on till June, the plaintiff putting witness off with promises. Ultimately the witness took possession according to the agreement and sold the cab. Albert Thompson, farrier employed by the defendant, gave evidence as to having been present when the parties made the agreement referred to. He had warned his employer not to give the plaintiff credit. He witnessed the agreement which the defendant read out distinctly. Mr. Mann contended that the evidence showed a strong probability of the document having been signed under a misapprehension on the part of Pevreal. His Worship said the evidence was not altogether satisfactory, but he had no reason to doubt tlic defendant and Thompson. The plaintiff must be bound by the agreement, however, and judgment would be entered for the £3 10 confessed, the rest of the claim being decided in defendant’s favor. COACHBUILDER’S CLAIM.. David Bell, coachbuilder, (Mr. Burnard) sued Joseph Morton for £1 Is 6d in respect of work done. The defendant complained that the charge was excessive. Judgment was entered for the amount claimed with 14s costs.