Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

PORTLAND COUNTY COURT.
Saturday, 35th Noeanbcr.
(Before His Honor Judge Hadott.)
CsmO.%. Cooke— Charged with removing a.
fence and canting damage to foe extent of£35
15a. Bin Gsinett prosecuted, and Mr. H.
Butter defended. Afters shlt ffiacuaramjaia
heard beforea'jury. Oust to be easts in the
(knar. HtddUth. — dsimfcr £10, the valne
of some hay improperly disposed of, waa also
postponed for a jury.
Eat r. Kdwarax. — ims wax a case ot claim
for damages adjourned for further evidsne«Lt
ihc request of tbe juiy, from last court. Tha
plaintm claimed damages far fences burned
through a bnah-fire wifiidiy earned by defen-
danfa boya, who were summoned to appear and
give evidence. Mt BuHrr appeared for plain
tiff and Mr. Saronel for the deWe.
Meoara. Drew, Fare; Huxley, aad W.Duff
were the jury.
All witnesses were ordered out of court.
tTCIiiam Edwards, sworn : Am son of defen
dant. Bemember tbe fire in question. Did not
set fire to the ansa Waa with my brother all
day, and he did not light it either. We want
for a load of am. iFhen we got their the
place was on fire.
To Mr. Boiler : Saw no one there when the
fire was burning- (On pressure) Soar John
Newton there, fie only arid "good day." Hie
waa a little away from the fire He told us to
poll down some fence. Dant know th« cause of
the fire. Saw the cases there, they were not
burned, never eet fire to scrub and graai in my life,
waa never told to do so by father. Tbe fire waa
burning at 111 o'clock in toe morning. About
30 acres were burnt then. Did not see John
Newton next day. He never said anything
about my being put in gaol for the fire.
John Edwards, brother of last witness, de
posed that he waa with his brother on the day of
the fire, toe ground waa burning when they got
tberc>
To Mr. Butter : One line of fence was down
between 9 and 10. Went for the cases. Saw
Newton there. Saw him there next day. My
brother waa with tne- Did not tell him who lit
the fire. He said nothing about bemg-pat in
gsoL ( He never and one word about the fire,
"Mr. utoraddresaed the jury chiefly on toe
unreliable nature of the evidence of the boyr.
Mr. Samuel also said a few words contending
that even anpporing the boya had lit the fire the
act did not maketoe fattier xespoarible.
His Honor reviewed the evidence as takes at
last court, and the jury after a brief consulta
tion gave a verdict for defendant, costs to bs
taxed within two months.
Jama Bell c. T. BUiton.— Claim for £7 en a
dishonoured hill at exchange.
Mr. Butler appeared for tie plaintiff, and Mr.
Samnel for the defendant.
James Bdl deposed that the promissory note
waa in defendant's hand writing. The amount
was still owing. The note (produced) was drawn
in favor of James Bell only.
To Mr. Samuel : The note wis rives for cattle
sold. My brother Henry might have had an
interest in some of them. TTe were pertsera
in some transactions. Mr. Richmond Henty
did not sell there cattle under jomi instructions
To Mr. Batter : I have applied to defendant
for the money. Never authorised Henry Bell
to receive it. He knew the note waa given in
favor of James Bell alone.
Thomas H. Bflston on oath deposed : I paid
Henry Ben £5 in May, 1876, ud £2 more after
wards. Toldplalntiff 1 had paid Henry.
Henry Bell sworn ; Deceived the money aa
my brother's partner, and gave him credit till a
settlement was made between no. Defendant
did not eak for the note back. Told my brother
I had got toe money.
Verdict for plaintiff, coeta, £2 4s.
J. Carroll ft A. AriteB.— This was an actum
for £99 damages on account of malicious prose
cution and fibs imprisonment.
Mr. Butter appeared for toe plaintiff, and
Mr. Samuel for the defence.
The following jury were empannelled : — C.
V. Bobinson, Tbos. Hudson, Chaxlee ADwn J.
Hagcestton.
All witnesses in the case were ordered out of
Court,
This action arose out of a case heard before a
bench of magistrates some weeks ago, particu
lars of which have already appeared in toe
Spectator. AriceU had obtained a search
warrant, an d earned Carroll to be arrested on a
charge of stealing a bag of potatoes from bis
hnt on a farm adjoining Carroll's paddock. The
magistrates had dismissed the case, and added
that Carroll left the Court without toe slightest
stain upon his character. Hence the action.
The evidence throughout waa similar to that
already published. There waa no reasonable
doubt aa to Carroll's entire innocence, but Mr.
Kamnel urged technical difficulties, the chief of
which waa the want of any official document
bearing an Carroll's discharge foom the custody
of the police. He cited a care Femes .
Another, heard at Bedfast, in which the objec
tion had been customed, and the Judge held
toe objection to be fetal, and nonsuited the
plaintiff with £5 5a oosta.
After aa hour's adjournment the Court re-
enmed basin ess, when the last ease on the list
was called: —
HcBadurn v. Mrs. Richmond Henty.— Claim
for £9 16s 6d, goods sold and delivered.
Mr. Butler appeared for pfam+T, and Mr.
Samuel for defendant.
D. HcRacheru, sworn : Know defendant; toe
oftrm purchased goods, and had an account with
me in her own name: On 5th January, 1876,
she got goods in her own name, and paid by her
own cheque. Her accounts up to that sued for
were paid regularly. This amount ia still due.
Have not received anything on account of it.
Mr. and Mri. Henty kept separate accounts.
Tbe goods were delivered- The entries are
correct and were never disputed.
John Martin, sworn : Was storeman to Mr.
D. HcEachera in 1876. Have delivered goods
at her house a number of times.
Mrs. Richmond Henty, sworn : I did not get
the brandy, down in the first entry. Never had
a private account with the plaintiff. Always
paid my house account by my own cheques.
Never told plaintiff I wanted to open an account
in my own name. Never ordered goods myself,
bnt always with my husband ; a tea and ooffee
service, for instance, waa ordered by us together.
I hare separate accounts in Melbourne. Have
been sued by Messrs. W. P. Anderson and Co.
in my own name in this court, bnt don't know
whether the account ens paid or not. Have
property of my own. Some of the goods were
delivered at my house. I nerer objected to toe
items, but to the whole acoount.
By Mr. Samuel : Never contracted peraotudly
with Mr. Mr.Kaohem. I and my husband
specially from Melbourne to defend this action.
George Bennett, sworn: Am assistant store-
man at Mr. MfEatoern's. Mrs. Henty came
occasionally and ordered goods heradf. Her
husband was generally with W Sim. Henty
bought toe tea and coffee service from me per
sonally. Her husband was not present at -toe
time. She waa alone, and ordered toe goods
from me, and I told Mr. Hirirmer, who made the
entry.
Mr. Samuel contended that there was no
evidence to show that Mrs. Henty had made
herself personally reportable for her husband's
dtots, and tbe judge nonsuited the plaintiff,
with £13 costs.
$