RESDENTS MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Inangahua Times, Volume V, Issue 63, 31 July 1878, Page 2

RESDENTS MAGISTRATE'S COURT

1 TbjwdaXj Juiiy 30Trr, 1878i ' ((BoforoE. Shaw, Esq r , 8,M.). JUMIWY. 1 William, M'iVnughton was charged on, tbo, information, of fcorgoant Novillo with tho, Inrcony of n pit saw, valued at £1 f)a, the property of Moor and, Molloy, conlrnnlors. SorfionntNorillo oonductcd. tho oaso for tho prosecution,, Dol'ondanfc watt' not ro« presented by connaol. SorgoantNovillo. having briofly oponod tho onso, cnllod tbo following owdonoc:— > ])ofondant ipft us in July. Ho had, boon in, our employ, and in July when, ho loft I fiavo him, an ordor to rcooivo a cor* lain sum of raonoy, which ho roceivodjnnd 'I produce his roooipt in full for all raonoyo. owed 1 by u« to, him, Missed tho saw, in question, on Tucsdny morning 22nd inn 'atnnt, from. our flawpit. I oannot identify tho saw, but my j'' ftl 't«or m\& working I with, it., Upon missinft <ho saw I.mado inq/iirios of a porson living on tho rond, i and. hoard that dofondnnfc had boon soon going dowin tho rondiwith thogftw. I mot Lyons and wits told by him. that tho saw was at his plnoo,, "VVa then oommunioalod , v»ith, tho poliocr» Cross-oxaminod--Ildidnofc como to you i about Iho saw. .lte^oxaminod^-* l W'opa^d, £1 Os for, tho saw. : Constable Pennott deposed that on roooiving instructions- ho mado inqnirioa rogarding tho saw in quoslion, and about throo mile» from tho Loft^Hand 1 Branch naw M'olloy, and requested! him to point out whoro defendant livod*. Ho did ro. and upon, boing quostionod prisoner ndImijLtod having, taken tho. sa<w from Moor'S pit. Lyons was- sonfc for, nnd' showod witnoas w.licro- prisoner hnd put tho saw. Got tho saw, and markod it. Lyons said that prisoner told him tho saw was his (prisonor'B). Then arrosted, prisonor. Charles Lyons was culled,, bufcdid,'n,ot appear. In roply to tho Bonoh prisonoi^ said ho had, no intention whatever of stealing tho saw. Ho understood that ho (prisonor)i hid paid for. tho saw in settling up. Had ho nny idea thut tho saw wan not paid for he would not havo lakon, it, Ifc wn» aiTflngod. that I was to find a saw, and I thought that prtwuiov Jwl fii-iluelcd it

from .tho account, having furnish.),! it to mo in tho first in.sl.nn<!o. In reply lo the IJiiiidi defenda-il said lie had Wen in Nee ft on (or live or six months. Soruoimt Neville stiiod that defendant liuh boon in custody since llio evening of tho 3-th infant. Ilis Worship said ho oould not accept defendants' version of tho a Mir.' Ha must httvo known porfcotly well nt tho tiwo that ho did not pay for tho saw. It appoarod howovor-, that no. attempt was mado to conceal tho saw and this, coupled with, tho foot that defendant did not bear a bud oharnotor, would induco the Court to pass ft very light snntenoe, dooming that imprisonment, however light, would be o sufficient humiliation. Sontencod to six; hours imprisonment in tho jftooflon GaoU CIVIJ. CASES. United Band of Hopn Company v MMCwan.— Claim for £;— for calls. Mr M'Jjean, manager of tho company proved tho oaßo. Defendant did not appear. His Worship, called altcntion to the faot, that throo calls woro being sued for, which waa not permissible according to a rooont ruling oftfio Supremo Court. Mr M'Loiui said ,that in tho jure son t oasoho would not prosa for a judgment for tho third calli jhn, tho ninouut was trivial, but another case would cotuo on and tho question would again crop up and ho would like to havo u ruling of tho Cuurt upon. Iho point, as tho company folt dcsiKOU.B. oHostinfi. tbo mailer- upon appcalu. Mis 'Worship said it was not becoming in, n Mngiatrnlo b<> reconsider a point nl" ready nulod upon by a Judgo of iho Supremo Court. However, ko would hold the ninttor over (or consideration vyitil l?ridfly. Same v Paine.-- jG^-for calls. No appoaranco of dofendnnt.. Judgment for tho amount wi'h costs. ]3ontman's Crock :(Jompnny, V Phillip Aloxandor.--JEB 6.s %\, for calls. Mr M'Loan, tho manager of tho. compnny, proved the claim-. Cr.osß-»ojcnroiwjd> by defondant~At tho March mooting of directors, at which the 31st call wns struck, there were prosent Mussrs Hankin, Beill\y nncl Oawll. The bamo persons woro also presont at l.ha subsequont mooting wheu th.o 33ud cal wns. struck. Drfordanf; hero remiirkod lo tho Boncli that his roosou. for opposing tho summons wns.thftt tho directors 'who mado- tho- calls now RM?d for wero themselvea. throe or four calls in arrcar at the timo of tho striking of tho calls. ; Mr M'Lpan said tboro was not tho , plightcot fo'undfttion for defendant's statements. 'I'ho accounts of tho Company had boon duly audited sinco the dato of the mo tings in quod o-i. ' Ho pnoducod Iho lodgor'of tho Company which showod thnt the directors )n question ha J paid nil onWfl duo. At that* limo Cavcll owed throo calls ;,■ the comply wero indobtod to. tho Bank for overdraft, and; Meturs Boilbv, Ilankinand C(\voll, gavo a joint promissory tiolo covering- tho Bank's debt ; Alexander, himsolf, whilo a diroo tor of tho Company hud sat and voted, being nt tho timo two. or. throo onlls in arttcar-v i His. Worship said* h& did' not soo what tho lino of examination hud. to do with tho prosent oaso ; ; tho only qjiostion boforo Court wnßt ns. lowhothor tho call had boi'ii 'properly made, nnd was unpaid. Dofondunt said ho wnntod to ki o.v why his Bharoß had, not bqon, forfeited ivlong with othoifi* J His Worship, r-ulod, that that question oould bo put. ; Mi' M'Uioun— The roason. Alexander's shares woro not sold' w.as that ho called at frho offlco, on. tho day of tho sale, and promised' that ho would pay. hjs oalls, and: asking, that his shares sharo should not bo sold. Ho (Mr M l L.oan) | was,not in Heofton, at tho timo, but oould produce his dork, who would bo able toprovo •bho-'faob. Ttoborb Eollestonr-T am clork to. Mr , M'Loan ; : I rcoollcct thflittuotiou salo of shares in tho Boutman's Crook Company on the 18th May }: on that day Alexander o«llod«at the offlco and inquired whothor. his shares woro to bo put up. Ho asked to hoc. tho list,, nnd I showod it to him, His name was not upon* l.ho- list of thoso t to bo sold, and ho saw- that it was not ; ho said 1 I had bottor includo his shares but shortly nftorwards he roturnod nnd told me not to soil his- (hares nn Ilioy would bo nil right, moaning that lowould pay thobaolc oalls, ' Cross-oxaminod by defendant— l was roprosonting Mr M'Lonn on that occasion and tho directors also ; ; I aotod underinstructions, from both, Cnvoll had, told mo. previously to put up, his sharos ; I knew that Ouvoll owod throo calls. I , possibly was. prosonl afc tho mooting of directors when tho call of 41 was struck, llcoolloet youi coming, into tho oflloo with' Davios and going ovor tho list,, and you nftorwards oamo back and I understood from what you. said that you would pay your arro4rs ;. I uuJorstood you to say that you. did. not wish, you* shares to bo old. Thio- closed tho onsofor plhinliff. Tho dofondnut on examination said —I was aware that I owod throo calls, nnd to my astonishment when I wont into tho oflloo on. tho morning of tho salo I found thai my namo was not upon, tho | list of those to bo sold ; I told Mr KolloHton to soil mo out;. 1 told him to lo,t thorn rip. Oross'oxnminod by M.t MLenn— l havo boen a director in tho company and havo sat and voted ot directors. Jnontingn while in nvron.v!jforonllßi,but. what applies

to nMiors does not apply lo inc. Judgmrnt t'osiTvoii. Sm« r Stmn-C'J $> lit for oill". Judgment lor t,lio amount chimod wit 1 1 CO*t.S. His Worship htimn'ed Unit !ip would uivi? his decision in the cases on Friday next. Roberts v Danlcs— This was on op» plication for rohoaring. Mr Pitt appeared for defendant. At a recent sitting a judgment wns given against Itobnrts for tho sum" of £7, lor board lodging, and cash lout. On that occasion the defondunt (lloborts) did not nppear, but ho subsequently nppliod forn rohonnng of tho case, on, thn ground that ho was unable to nt end tho si ting in .qnostion owing to floods, His Worship granted the rohoaring ordoring Roberts lo pay the sum of £2 into Court, as costs lo await ihotinal hearing. Tho obso enmo on as abovo whon tho former judgment was confirmed, and Roberts was mulcted in costs to tho total amount of £5 10'. M'Loan (agent for J. Britnblc), v Dunn —Claim for &2 5s for freight. Mr Pitt appeared for defendant. Mr M'Loan producer] tho weigh bills showing the carnage from Greymouth, and dolivory to ilo'bndanl at Ileoftou of | six doors, weighing in tho aggregate--4501b5, at tho rate of 10s per lOOlbs. Defendant statod that, ho purchnsod tho doors in question from Arnott and If unlor, Qroymouth) tho nrrnnuomont being that tho doors woro to ho delivered at Kcofton at 25s onch. Ho also produced i\ receipt from Mr Arnofcl, Greymouth, showing llinl the doors had'boou poid for* I Mr Houg wns called for defendant, and proved (hut Jio ofTorod to aupply defendant with doors nt Hoot'tori at 2*m each. Mr M'Lenn argued that tho rulo of Iho Indo was thnt the consignee is liublo for freight, If upon delivery pnvmcnl is refused, (ho pimelieo is to store flu 1 goods at Iho risk of tho party,, but Mr Dunn being a respectable trudosuvnn delivery was given 'o him without any questions. [[is Worship saiil it would ba necessary to fake the evidonoo of Arnott, in Greymoulh, and in order to allow that to bo dono Iho tniso was adjourned for a fortnight. *. Tho Court then adjourned.