RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Inangahua Times, Volume II, Issue II, 24 May 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

HWW>&, May 22, 1880. (Before W. H. Eevell, Esq.. EMf'' JL2&WAL B* CUE. \ Timothy Fattinion appeared upon pit* information, of John M'Quillafl, to answer, h charge of illega'ly rescuing /cattle, while on tlieir way to the Public Found. Defendant denied tfee charge. The following evidence was called ?— John M'iQuillan ; j On<fcheday in question 1 «d%jpitfle 13? rf^aldbfrj aid gay! fheafy dy**foy, I tohFthe boy to drive them to the Found, and on sang out to Pattiiwon., tailing him not ; to_ (interfere ;rtth ti&/ciftle» ,1 wa«i<»i»%n<M opposite side of tbe river. • Crosi e*am*ned b? as»dantl rl«~ pounded the cattle for trespassing on my ground. , ,By theJencb* The l««f-» leasehold^ the application tiag been granted ttf» me. It is fenred with a «ood <bush fence. I cannot say how the cattle get in, as we had to knock down the fence to let the cattle oat. I put ap tbe greater part of | the fence myself. { James Connolly afad Timortiy O'Neill I were called upon the subp&na, but did t notjßp ( pearU ( : sv J Hugh M'Quillau- 1 recollect Pattinson rescuing tbe cows from me, I was driv ing the cattle to the Pound; Croßß-<«amined by defendant— You asked me where I got the cattle from, and I toU you in our paddock, and that I was driving them to the Pouad. This- closed plaintiff's case. Timothy Pattinson— On tbe 7th April, I put the cows into the paddock in question at about 10 o'clock, and put the ence up. About 5 o'clock in the event ing, 1 saw the boy with two of the cattle, and asked him where he got the cattle from, where he was going to take them to, what damage they hid; done. He said he did fiot v knowyand s -f then told him if he did not know what damage the cattle had 'done, and where he got them, he bad better let them go back, and be did so, As to the ownership of the pad* dock in question, I first applied for the ,lodr s ajndtp|it a" femp irf ft, afd 'ptpr^ffyl applhjltioh had been adfertiled, M'^uiF- " lan applied for the same land, and when Mr Greenfield was here he ordered me to remove the crop, which I did. and I considered tbe land was in my possession ai the time. <_■.- '; ; y ,ij. 4 , ? ; Cross»examined by plaintiff— I did not reeeire nottce from you on the 10th March cautioning me not to interfere with the land. Saw by the papers after /"the 1 summons that theJTeaW^had been res fused to me. John Saundera was called, and proved that he saw the boy driving the cattle, and that there was no row at the time the rescue tooji p|ae,e. . . „ t + j /fßjr p}aintiflf**l was two or tlffeiyimn-^ dred yards away from Pattinson wh£n the rescue took place. I did not see the actual rescue, nor hear J. M'Quillan caution Pattinson not to interfere with the cattle. 1 i : Ws Worship Sfnd It was clear .the acati» tie bad been taken out of a paddock belonging to plaintiff. The cattle were being^driven to the Pound, and they were still in plaintiff's possession, and, there* fore, defendant bad no right whatever to InterTere*wi»lj them. People in Beef ton seemed to treat offences of this kind yery light'y, and this was the third ease of illegal rescue brought before tbe Court. Every person, whose cattle were driven to- thelPouridf h£d| a I proper^ and | lega| remedy^ They should "allow the cattle to be driven away, and then proceed against the person impounding for damages. It was time a stop was put to this kind of thing. The penalty provided by law for such offences was a fine of £50 to £5. In the prisent case, defendant would be fined £5, and costs. SMITH V. POMCK. Defendant was charged with assaulting complainant on the 13th April. Defendant denied the charge. Alfred Smith— l am a farmer, and live in close proximity to Reefton. On tbe morning of the day in question I met defendant's boy, and asked him if it wa* t|ue he was telling pe°^ e *bat I pouffdei h ? is go«ts;-- He" said il v&s true, arid h^ had a good mind to give me a slap in tlie face. 1 went in to speak to his father, and he called me a liar, and ordered m? out of the honse, and when I got outside the defendant hit me in the face, and nearly knocked me in a dangerous place. Cross«exa mined by defendant — I got into your house by going into the door. I cannot say whether I knocked at the door. I said that if Heslop said I pounded the goits he told a falsehood. I said (he same of Mrs M'Lean. I didfrotcall them liars. I was neat the road when 'the, Assault took place. I had a mark on my face. I am sure the whole assault was not condensed into one kick going out of the door. I believe I tfajkeA i out of the~hou.=e directly you asked me ; I was not assisted out by a book James Pollock : — I recollect seeing the plaintiff on the morning in question ; Mrs Hughes was present. Did not tell him that hd-pouniedthe goats, but said that \he assisted to pound them j did not tell plaintiff that I would pound his cattle whenever I,iot a chance j did not threaten to slap him in the mouth, I did not see my father ki>k plaintiff in the thigh. Eichard Farmer; Eecollect plaintiff

showing me where he said defendant had kicked him on the front of the thigh. There was a slight braise. Mr^Poilook was called, but declined to give evidence unless her expenses were paid, to, which plaintiff demurred. This closed the. plaintiff's ease. JamcS' Pollock : 0a the day in ques« tion' plaintiff 1 came into my bouse and asked my wife about impounding goats. Sbe said that our boy bad told her that Smith bad assisted to drive^ the goats 'o iPouVcfr 3f efefidfnl paid tbe boy' was a la^^hln sarthtat Mr Heilop confirmed wbat tbe boy had said, and defend- j rwaerttetitSP&MgFffl* "lSf a^o. 1 1 remarked that Mrs M'Lean had told us Ithe,Bßm¥iaiinef6oy, and as they could not all be Hare, I would not have such -KEprmiottS TttHTdrtrae iftUnd that be had better leave the house. Instead of doing [ so, however, he stood there in a con- ! temptuous attitude, so I caught bold of him by the collar and gate him a kick in the back- side out tbe door, and tbat'a the whole that took place. By the plaintiff : Tarn sure I did not follow you out of the house. My wife did not catch bold of me to hold me back. Only kicked you once, and that was be» hind. Fined £1 ard costs. Savage v. Kb Hong and Othebs. This case, which was an information for assault, was again called on, but owing to the absence of an interpreter the hearing was, on the application of Mr Jones, for Mr Lynch, farther adjourned to the 3rd June. Ovebbnd v. Lynch. In this ease plaintiff failed to put in an appearance, and the ease was struck out. His Worship refused defendant's application for expenses. Tictory Company v. Tapley : claim for £21 17s 4d. for calls. No appearance of defendant : judgment for tbe amount claimed and costs. Smith and Barkley y. Petersen : a elaitn for £2 10s, for goods supplied : no appearance of defendant : judgment for the amount claimed, and costs. Grieves end Gothard v, R. King ; fraud summons. Adjourned to the 3rd June. In tbe ease of O'Brien v. Smith there vhi no appearance of either party and the case was struck oat. ! Victory Company v, Hornicke : claim for calls. Defendant was examined as to bis ability to satisfy the demand. He I bad; been working during tbe past two months ia the Energetic mine. Was in a tribute in the Victory mine before that, but only made £2 a week in it. Was a shareholder in that company, but could not say whether his name was still on the register, as he had told the manager that he did not want to have anything more to do with it. Order [ made for payment of the amount by inst^lments of £3 per month. v, Montgomery ; This was a claim for damages, for injury alleged to have been done to a horse while under hire. Defendant said he had retained Mr lynch to act for him in tie ease,' but that gentleman was detained Th Greyraonth, and he therefore asked for an adjournment of tbe case. Adjownprt to the 3rd June. Same v. Mumv s claim for £2 9«, for enods supplied : £2 had been paid into Court and judgment was given for the balance, with costs. M'Oonnon v. Malone : claim for £14 18s 6*, for rent of All Nations Hotel, Black's Point : no appearance of defendant. Judgment for the amouut claimed and costs. In giving judgment his Worship commented very warmly upon the facts elicited in the case. It transpired that plaintiff was tbe holder of the license for the hotel and had let the premises without transferring the license, thus virtually making tbe ten ant the licensee, without the knowledge nr sanction of the Licensing Bench. More recently, however, the premises had been spized and sold by the bailiff, but the business wis still carried on, notwithstanding tbat the license res mained in the name of the original grantee, and that he had pared with all interest in the premises. His Worship said that he had never heard of such a gtate^of things ', people here seemed to ftiinV they could "' do as they liked in these matters. He directed the police to issue an information against the occu» piers of the premises for, a breach of the* Lifensing Act. « Victor? Company v. Da vies : claim for £10 Bs, 91, for callg. Defendant ad mitted the claim, but pleaded a «Sel>ofl[ for £23, His Worship pointed out tha¥» it was not competent for a defendant to set off a larger claim against a smaller one, unless the defendant abandoned the balance. Defendant thought that if he proved his claim the company would be indebted to him for the balance. His Worship said such was not the case, and the only way the set-off could be u«ed was by sacrificing the difference. He suggested as the best way out of the difficulty that defendant should con<* sent to judgment, and execution would be stayed until the 3rd June to allow defendant to bring a cross action. The suggestion was accepted and judgment given for the amount with co3ts. Same v. Dawson : claim for £3 16^ : Defendant admitted the correctness o ' the amount, but pleaded , that it had been satisfied. He held an order on the company for £16, which the manager accepted, but upon presenting it I witness was £old that unless he took 10s

in the £ he would get nothing. He thereupon accepted the composition, and gave the receipt in full now produced. This was however done in the beliet that the company's claim against him wss extinguished, Rn & as \t was notj j le now repudiated the compromise, and claimed the full amount of the order, not having signed any deed of compositionHis Worship declined to go behind the receipt, and therefore gave judgment for the amount claimed with costs. Few Independent Company v. Martin : a claim for £4 8a lid, for calls. M r John M'Gaffin, who represented the defendant, asked that the case might be postponed or judgment heH over until a pending appeal between the parties had been settled by the Supreme Court. H© could distinctly assure the Court; of the intention of the defendant to prosecute the appeal. The paint involved in the former as io the present cas« was si to the right of the company to retain a shareholder's name on the register after lodgement of a transfer, no objection having been made at the time or subsequently against such trausfer. Judgment witheld until after the next sitting of the Supreme Court it Hokitika. Same v. Cato t claim for £15, for calls : no appearance of defendant : judgment fo> the amount claimed, with costs. D. Williams v, Connington : claim for £3, arising out of transactions at Kumara Defendant said that he neves had any transactions with a man named John Farley, bu! sold a share to his brother on condition thai he (Thomas Fa?ley) brought truck and tooli to the amount of £8 into the claim. Farlej brought the tools and was then recognised as a shareholder. Sold him the shire about the 14fch July, 1877. The debt sued for appears to have been contracted on that date. Mr Reilly, the manager of the Bank oi .Australasia, andG-eorge O'Brien were shareholders in the claim. I never ordered any of the items sued for. The goods came to the claim on the order of Thomas Farlej. 1 never paid plaintiff any cash as alleged, no: did the company. I left the claim about tw< years ago, and am in no way indebted t< plaintiff. This closed the case and the cvi den ne was referred back to Kumara Aiken v. Parry : In this case Mr Jonea acting for Mr Lynch, applied for execution tc issue agafnsfc the defendant. H-- faid thai notwithstanding the great length of time th.l had elapsed since the judgment, no steps had been taken to prosecute the appeal. His Worship said he would issue execution after the lapse of one month, and ordered notice to that effect to be served upon defendant. The Court t? en adjourned.