Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Local Court, 1874 NT

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 16 January 1874, p 2

LAW COURTS.

LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.

Wednesday, January 7.

(Before Dr. Ellison, S.M., Hon. T. Reynolds, and Mr Connor.)

Marker v. Sebbes

Action for £100 on account of wrongful use of two bullocks belonging to the plaintiff. Mr. Smith for the defendant.

Evidence was given to show that the bullocks, which had been running in the country beyond Southport, had been yoked up by the orders of the defendant, and used by his men in the carting of stores up to the reefs,

Mr. Smith applied for an adjournment on account of the absence of witnesses, which was granted on the payment of costs.

Little v. Fisher.

Action to recover £20, part payment of passage money on account of defendant and his family, during the time he was in the service of the Telegraph department. Judgment for the defendant.

Gore & Co. v. Reynolds.

(Mr. Gardner here took the place of Mr. Reynolds on the Bench.)

Action for £32 4s., on account of dishonored cheques.

Mr. Smith for the plaintiff.

Howard Gore, the plaintiff, said the cheque produced for £21 7s. 6d. was signed by S. E. Reynolds, the defendant. That cheque, as well as others produced, had never been paid. Could not say whether A. D. Gore was at any time a member of the firm Reynolds,

Gore, & Co.

The defendant acknowledged his signature to the cheque produced, and called the Hon. T. Reynolds, who gave evidence to the effect; that the defendant had filed a bill in equity against A. D. Gore, and that witness, when the case was referred to arbitration, asked the arbitrators to consider a sum of £800, which had been forwarded to Adelaide to Howard Gore by S. E. Reynolds, and also asked that other sums owing by A. Gore to S. E. Reynolds (the sums now before the Court) should be included in the arbitration, so that this was one of the matters in equity. The remittance to Adelaide had never been accounted for. By Mr. Smith-Could not swear that H. Gore was not in Palmerston at that time; he might have been. Did not know, on oath, whether S. E. Reynolds was at present connected with the firm of Gore and Co., Mitchell-street, Palmerston.

The Court gave judgment for the amount claimed, and costs.

Bell v. Reynolds, Gore, and Co.

Action for £38 17s., 1d., on account of barge hire.

Mr. Smith for the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, A. Bell, stated that he left the barge, of which he was part owner, at Port Darwin with Mr. A.D. Gore acting as his attorney. On returning he found that she had been hired by S. E. Reynolds and Co., and therefore he applied to them for the money now due.

Evidence was called as to the proper persons to be charged with the amount, and the Court gave judgment for the plaintiff, £34 19s. 10d.

Gore and Another v. Reynolds.

Action for £15 on an IOU.

Mr. T. F. Reynolds acknowledged his signature to the IOU, and said he give it in error, knowing it was a private affair between S. E. Reynolds and A.D. Gorr.

H. Gore, the plaintiff, said the IOU came in the usual course of business, and Mr. T.F. Reynolds said it would be paid when presented to S. E. Reynolds on his arrival.

Judgment for plaintiff, with costs

Friday, January 9.

Brown v. Tremwith.

Action for £30, wages. Mr. Smith for the plaintiff.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

 

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 23 January 1874, p 3

LAW COURTS.

MONDAY, JANUARY 19.

(Before Dr. Ellison, S.M. and Mr. Wells.)

RADFORD V. STRETTON.

Action for £43 7s. on an overdue dishonored bill, given on account of tins of meat purchased by defendant from the plaintiff. Mr. Smith for the plaintiff.

Judgment for the plaintiff, with costs.

RYAN V. WHYTE.

Action for £47 14s. Mr. Smith for the plaintiff.

It appeared from the evidence that the defendant had been collector and accountant for the plaintiff; that he had received various sums of money for him including the amount in dispute; and that he was now detained on warrant, it having been supposed that he was about to leave the settlement.

Defendant stated that he could not go into the matter without his books, which were at Southport, and which would show that his accounts were correct; and he called J. Jones and G. T. Clarkson to show that he had no intention to leave Port Darwin by the Pioneer.

Case postponed, security in the meantime to be given by defendant for the amount claimed.

Court adjourned.

 

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 6 February 1874, p 2

LAW COURTS.

LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4.

[Before Dr. Ellison, S.M., Hon. T. Reynolds, R. Gardiner, and J. M. Connor.]

Before the business of the Court was commenced, Mr. Smith stated that as a professional man he considered it his duty to bring before the Bench a circumstance which he thought was highly calculated to impair the dignity of that Court. He had stated before that he would again refer to the matter, and he thought this was the proper time to do so.

Dr. Ellison said that if Mr. Smith's observations had reference to a telegram and to remarks made at a public meeting, he declined to hear any statement whatever.

Mr. Smith would produce his authority, and wished to know if Mr. Charles Herring had not made a statement to Dr. Ellison on the subject.

Dr. Ellison had seen Mr. Herring, but he would say in Court that he had not

made any statement to him in reference

to a telegram.

Mr. Reynolds said something sotte voce about insult and committal, and Dr. Ellison requested the Clerk to call on the first case.

Mr. Smith said that if the Bench would not allow the subject to be reopened, he would sit down; but he thought, as he before stated at a public meeting, believing Dr. Ellison was above being influenced by the telegram, he was doing him a favor in affording him an opportunity for explanation, for which he ought to be thankful.

Dr. Ellison-We have nothing to thank you for.

The subject then dropped.

APPLICATION.

A storekeepers' licence was granted to W. E. Adcock.

MARKER V. SEBBES.

Action for illegally using two bullocks, the property of complainant; adjourned case from last Local Court sitting. Mr. Smith for defendant.

John Wood stated that he knew the two bullocks that Sebbes was driving at the Banyan; they belonged to complainant. Could not swear positively by whom they were driven. Only saw the bullocks at the Banyan. They had been running for some time at Collett's Creek.

By Mr. Smith-Was a carpenter. Never saw the bullocks driven by Sebbes nor by his men. Never saw them driven in by any one. Saw them at Marker's before, and with Marker's bullocks travelling up and down along the telegraph line. Could not recollect their color.

By the Bench-Would know the bullocks by their shape and size.

William Thomas stated that he offered Marker £10 for the hire of the bullocks, presuming they were Marker's; the £10 was afterwards paid into Court.

By Mr. Smith-The £10 was offered to buy peace rather than be at the expense of travelling down from Yam Creek to defend the case. Was present at Southport when Marker's property was seized and sold; the 12 bullocks were sold for £60.

Richard Middleton and Henry Horn, two bullock-drivers in the employ of defendant, stated that two bullocks mixed with their team, and that by defendant's directions they were yoked and driven with the others about 20 or 30 miles. They could not swear who owned the bullocks.

Emuel Marker stated that he objected to the sale of the bullocks. To his knowledge the two bullocks bad not yet been found; they were sold nine in team and three on the road. He had offered a reward of £10 for the bullocks, but no one had yet claimed it.

W. F.Clarke, auctioneer, stated that the sale was an absolute one. He did not sell the chance of the three bullocks.

The Bench, after retiring for a few minutes, gave judgment for the plaintiff, £40 with costs, including the £10 already paid into Court.

Mr. Smith, under the 36th section of the Act, applied for judgment to stand over until he had an opportunity of lodging an appeal, the amount being over £30. Tbe Bench would grant the application, on the understanding that Mr. Smith would satisfy them that the appeal was made on a point of law or rejection of evidence.

REYNOLDS, DURAND, & CO. V. LUHNING AND HART.

Claim for £14 12s., goods sold and delivered. Mr. Smith for plaintiffs.

The defence was that the defendants had made an assignment of their estate to Messrs. Adcock and Caldwell for the benefit of their creditors, and that they thought the assignment relieved them from all liability.

Plaintiffs never saw the assignment, and were no parties to it.

Order for amount, with costs.

[Mr. Reynolds left the Bench during' the hearing of this case.]

CLARKE V. MARKER.

Claim for £29 I6s. 10d., goods sold and delivered.

Defendant admitted the debt, but asked for three mouths' time.

Judgment for amount, with costs.

SPURGEON V. WHITE.

Claim for £3 19s. Gd., board. Debt admitted. Order for amount, to be paid within a month.

H. L. BEETSON V. YOULTEN.

Claim for £20 5s. 2d. Mr. Smith for plaintiff.

Adjourned till next Court day, costs of the day to be costs in the cause.

MOORE V. BROMLEY.

Claim for £14 17s, bill of exchange.

Mr. Smith for plaintiff. Verdict by default.

MERRY AND ANOTHER V. UHR.

For £77 10s, dishonored acceptance,

Mr. Smith for plaintiff. Judgment by default.

ROSS V. WILLIAMS.

Claim for £44, dishonored cheque.

Mr. Smith for plaintiff.

The cheque had been signed "William Williams," when defendant's name was Henry Williams. It seemed there were funds in the Bank, but the signature was objected to.

Case adjourned till next Court day, Summons to be amended.

MOORE V. CROCKER.

Claim for £35 13s, money lent, &c.

No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount, with costs.

RYAN V. WHITE.

Claim for £47 14s. Mr. Smith for plaintiff.

Plaintiff stated that defendant had been appointed collector and bookkeeper for the firm of Ryan & Murphy, and that he failed to account for £47 14s, paid by Mr. Little.

Defendant wished to put in a set-off, but as his account was not sufficiently intelligible to the Bench, the case was adjourned for a fortnight; costs of the day for plaintiff.

Thursday, February 5.

[Before Dr. Ellison, S.M., Hon. T. Reynolds, Mr. J. Lindsay, and Chief

Warden Connor.]

LUHNING AND OTHERS V. CALDWELL

AND OTHERS.

Claim for £100, £50 on account of giving up the Telegraph Hotel to defendants, and £50 damages for being detained in the colony waiting for payment of the amount.

Mr. Smith appeared for the defendants.

Plaintiffs' statement was that he entered into an agreement with defendants to hand over the Telegraph Hotel estate and books, and to give possession of the Hotel for the sum of £50, and that he had complied with the terms of the agreement.

The defence was that the terms of the agreement had not been fulfilled, that a portion of the estate had been concealed, and that the books had not been passed.

The Bench came to the conclusion that the terms of the agreement had not been carried out by plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs nonsuited, with costs.

CLARKE V. SKELTON.

Claim for £10 14s 11d., value of goods sold at auction by plaintiff, and said to have been delivered to defendant.

Mr. Smith for plaintiff.

The defendant paid £10 Is 11d. into Court for goods which had not been disputed. The dispute was as to some brandy in case and some biscuits.

Plaintiff's case was that the brandy was sold at per case, that there was no gaurantee [sic] that the biscuit was to be according to sample, and that delivery was accepted by defendant's nephew coming with a dray for the goods and singing [sic] delivery.

Several auctioneers were called on to state the practice of the profession, and they were of opinion that if the goods were taken away delivery had been completed. Other witnesses stated that the biscuits were damaged, and were not represented as sound. A cheque was returned by plaintiff for the amount paid for the brandy with 5 per cent. over.

The defence was that the brandy was sold at per dozen and not per case; that ?? the rattle there did not seem to be three sound bottles in a case; that the biscuit should have been according to sample, and that it was not fit for pigs; that his?? nephew went for the biscuit without being told to do so, and that both brandy and biscuits were returned. One or two witnesses believed that the brandy was sold by the dozen

The Bench considered that deliverv had been completed and gave judgment for amount, with costs, less the sum paid into Court.

ADCOCK V. TUCKWELL.

claim for £5 11s.

No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount in default with costs.

The Court then adjourned till half-past 2 o'clock.

On resuming, Dr. Ellison, the Hon. T. Reynolds, and Mr. J. Lindsay occupied the Bench.

 

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 27 February 1874, p 3

LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4.

(Before Dr. Ellison, S.M., Mr. Wells, and Mr. Gardiner.)

The cases of Lyons v. Lizard, claim for £50, and Peters v. Somner and Frith, claim for £8 15s., were called on, and Mr. Smith appeared for the plaintiffs in both cases. But the defendants were not present, as they had apparently concluded that the Court would not sit till the usual Court day, the first Wednesday in March.

Adjourned till the 4th March.

 

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 6 March 1874, p 3

LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4.

(Before E. W. Price, S.M., Dr. Ellison, and Mr. Connor.)

Beetson v. Youlton.-Claim for £25. Mr. W. V. Smith for plaintiff.

Verdict by consent for £21 18s.

Ross v. Williams.-Claim for £44.

Mr. W. V. Smith for plaintiff; Dr. Kauffman for defendant. Verdict for defendant.

Ryan v. Whyte.-Claim for £47 14s. Mr. Smith for plaintiff; Dr. Kauffman for defendant. Verdict for plaintiff, £17 12s. 11d. and costs.

(Before Mr. Price, S.M., Dr. Ellison, and Mr. Gardiner.)

Lyons v. Ligar.-Claim for £50

damages. Mr. Smith for plaintiff; Dr. Kauffman for defendant.

Verdict for plaintiff, £15 damages and costs.

Faulks v. Grierson. - Claim for £64 13s., debt. Mr. Smith for the plaintiff. Verdict for amount and costs.

Connor and Another v. Peters.

Claim for £21, damages. Struck out, with costs, plaintiff not appearing.

Hancock v. Sime.-Claim for £48 10s., wages. Dr. Kauffman for plaintiff; Mr. Smith for defendant. Verdict for the amount with costs.

LIMITED JURISDICTION.

(Before E. W. Price, S.M.)

Hancock v. Sime.-Claim for £5 18s.

Dr. Kauffman for plaintiff; Mr. Smith for defendant. Verdict by consent for £2 7s.

Price v. Jones.-Claim for £17.

Mr. Smith for defendant. Nonsuit, with costs.

Bieber v. Donovan. - Claim for debt, £4 3s. 6d. Verdict for the amount.

Fischer v. Morrison.-Claim for £3 3s. 6d. Verdict for amount.

Garson v. Bieber.-Claim for debt, £17 12s. 6. A set off was proved and a verdict for 19s. the amount paid into Court, was given for the plaintiff.

 

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 13 March 1874, p 3

LAW COURTS.

LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.

TUESDAY, MARCH 10.

(Before Mr. E. W. Price, S.M.)

Clarke v. Clark.-This was a claim for £40, damages sustained by plaintiff through alleged carelessness on the part of the defendant in delivering cargo from his ship the Tararua. Dr.

Kaufmann appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. W. V. Smith for the defendant.

The evidence showed that plaintiff's servants had their boats alongside the Tararua to receive cargo wanted by him, and that they declined to take some that was offered by the chief officer, because the sling in which it was contained held other cargo, and they refused to take the whole of the slingful. Afterwards, and when the boat had left the vessel, the five cases of potatoes were ready for delivery to plaintiff, but his boat was not alongside. The potatoes were therefore put into another boat and sent ashore, where they were landed. Plaintiff's people afterwards found them there in a damaged condition, as proved by several witnesses who had inspected them, and the plaintiff therefore brought, the present action to recover the cost of the damaged goods, £40.

The Court having considered, after addresses from counsel whether the captain had a right to discharge the cargo in the absence of plaintiffs boat, and whether the boat used by the captain was in good condition, gave a verdict for the defendant.

 

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 10 April 1874, p 3

LAW COURTS.

LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.

Thursday, April 2.

(Before E. W. Price, S.M.)

LIMITED JURISDICTION.

Lathlain v. Brown. - Claim for

£3 15s.

Mr. Smith for the plaintiff, and Dr. Kaufmann for the defendant.

This claim was for a case of brandy which plaintiff supplied to defendant after defendant's wife had asked him to lend it to them. It had never been paid for. Did not lend it to him or to Ross, but sold it.

Mr. John G. Kelsey said he gave the bill to defendant, and no objection was then made. The brandy did not belong to the Company.

Defendant, on being called, stated that he borrowed the brandy for Mr. Ross, with whom he was living at the time. A day or two afterwards saw Ross lend £5 to plaintiff, and heard him say it was on account of the brandy. Plaintiff never asked defendant for payment until Ross had gone away.

Mr. Lathlain was recalled, and said that when Ross gave him the £5 he said it could stand against two cases of brandy which he had previously obtained.

Nonsuit.

...

Jones v. Lindsay-Claim for £5 5s.

Dr: Kaufmann for the plaintiff and Mr. Smith for the defendant.

The amount claimed was the price of a tank sold by Mr. Clarke, auctioneer, at the suit of Lindsay v. Marker. Objection was made at the time of sale, and the auctioneer was told that the tank belonged to Jones; but it was sold, and the money was handed over to the special bailiff.

Plaintiff was called, and stated that he was certain the tank belonged to himself, as it was branded DR and JJ on one side. Never sold the tank to Marker. Did not knew how it got on his premises. It had been left on the beach at Southport.

Some further evidence was given showing that the bailiff was never cautioned against putting the tank in his inventory, and that the defendant, on being applied to, told the plaintiff that there was a legal way of getting possession of the tank if it had belonged to him.

Verdict for the defendant.

...

Caldwell v. Bieber.-Claim for £8 13s. 9d.

Dr. Kaufmann for the plaintiff and Mr. Smith for the defendant.

This claim was on account of goods supplied to defendant; and which he thought he had paid for in a previous account. Therefore disputed payment now.

On examining the accounts it appeared that though there was considerable confusion in reference to goods, the amount still remained unpaid.

Verdict for the plaintiff, without costs.

 

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 24 April 1874, p 3

LAW COURTS.

POLICE COURT-PALMERSTON.

Tuesday, April 21.
(Before E. W. Price, S.M.)
SAYERS V. SEBBES.
Mr. Smith appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and Mr. Jones for the defendant.
The claim was for wages due to Thomas Sayers, £12 19s. 8d.
Plaintiff stated he was working for Mr. Sebbes up to the 4th April last. Was then discharged without notice, as Mr. Sebbes had no funds. Was quite willing to remain. In consequence of not being able to cash orders received for wages came down to Palmerston, where the Bank refused them.
By Mr. Jones-You offered to pay me £15 3s. 4d. which did not include all my expenses. You said you would pay the Court fees, and that you would pay for the day on which the cheque was dishonored. The witness also spoke of other delays and ex-penses.
By Mr. Smith-I lost 10 days altogether.
Defendant was ordered to pay £12 19s. 8d. and fees, £1 11s.
GILL V. SEBBES.
Claim for £13 14s. 3d.-This case was very similar to the previous one.
Verdict for plaintiff, amount claimed and fees making altogether £17 12s. 3d.
LEE V. SEBBES.
Similar to the two previous cases; amount claimed £21 19s. 3d.
Ordered to pay £16 12s. 7d.: total £20 10s. 7d.
Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones appeared for the parties in both these cases.
Court adjourned.

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 1 May 1874, p 2

LAW COURTS.

LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.

Saturday, April 25.

(Before Mr. Price, S.M.)

Lindsay v. Allen.-Action for £29 2s. 2d. This was an action brought by Mr. John Lindsay against the master of the brig Contest for an alleged damage to flour consigned to him by the said vessel. Mr. Lindsay deposed as to the damage, and called Messrs. Durand and Otto Peters, who had held a survey on the flour. After evidence for the defence had been given by the master and mate of the vessel, a verdict was given for the amount, with costs.

Wednesday, May 6.

Cause List.

FULL JURISDICTION.

Application to Close Roads.

W.H. Gray.

Unsatisfied Judgment.

Westcott v. Starker.

Defended Causes.

Kaufmann-Barclay and Others v. Reynolds-Smith.

Kaufmann-Masson v. Reynolds-Smith.

Kaufmann-Westcott v. Reynolds-Smith.

Smith - Connor v. Clarkson and Another-Rudall.

Smith-Laurie and Others v. Lindsay-Rudall.

 

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 15 May 1874, p 3

LAW COURTS.

LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.

(Before Mr. Price, S.M.)

Caldwell v. Abdoola.

Claim for £10, amount of passage money paid for plaintiff on behalf of the defendant.

Mr. Smith for the plaintiff and Mr. Rudall for the defendant.

T. H. Permain, called by the plaintiff, stated that he was supercargo of the schooner Twins, on a voyage to the Islands, and was commissioned by the plaintiff to bring over a man and his wife as servants. Saw defendant and told him that he could got employment here at £3 per month, and that the cost of passage would be £5 each for himself and wife. Labor at Rotee was worth 1s. per day. He did not do any work for witness, but sold him some fowls at a higher price than they cost; £5 each person was the usual passage-money.

Ab Doolah, the defendant, said that plaintiff told him he could get £5 per month at Port Darwin, and his wife £4 per month. Also said that if defendant would buy things for him at Rotee, he would give him and his wife a free passage to Port Darwin. Bought buffaloes, horses, fowls, rice, &c., for Mr. Permain, as he could not speak the language; also bought 14 sheep and 100 cocoanuts for Mr. Permain.

Verdict for plaintiff, £9 8s.-12s. being allowed at the rate of 2s. per day for the work which defendant did at Rotee.

 

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 15 May 1874, p 3

LAW COURTS.

LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.

(Before Mr. Price, S.M.)

The case Laurie and Others v. Lindsay, set down to be heard at the last Local Court of Full Jurisdiction, was settled by arbitration, Mr. Connor being the arbitrator. Award given for plaintiff, with costs.

Cause List.

Limited jurisdiction.

Wednesday, May 20.

Unsatisfied Judgments.

Frew v. Campbell.

Faulks v. Todd.

Assessment of Damages.

Kaufmann-Colgan v. Uhr.

Defended Causes.

Kaufmann-Charles v. Badman.

Kaufmann-Horn v. Frew-Smith.

Smith-Abbott and Another v. Skelton.

Rudall-Lee v. Smith-Smith.

 

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 22 May 1874, p 3

LAW COURTS.

LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 20.

(Before Mr. Price, S.M.)

Frew v. Campbell.-Claim for £20.

Unsatisfied judgment.

Mr. Smith for the plaintiff.

Mr. J. Frew stated that there were other debts besides the one now sued upon. Mr. Campbell had represented that he had means to meet the order which was drawn in this case, but there were no means. It was a case of misrepresentation throughout.

Defendant did not appear. The serving of the summons was sworn to; and the Court.ordered the defendant 21 days' imprisonment.

Faulks v. Todd.-Claim for £16

5s. Unsatisfied judgment.

Mr. Smith for the plaintiff, and Mr. Rudall for the defendant.

Plaintiff said from four to eight months ago Mr. Todd, the defendant, incurred this debt. He was storekeeper in a Company at that time, and received £4 or £5 per week. Since then he had received £6 per week. Defendant had also said that he was in possession of horses. Believed he had some children in Adelaide.

Mr. Rudall, on behalf of defendant, said there would be no objection to pay 10s. per week; but his salary at present was not large.

Defendant, who did not appear, was ordered 30 days' imprisonment, so that he might make arrangements.

Colgan v. Ewer.-Claim for £20.

Dr. Kaufmann appeared for the plaintiff, who stated that he made an agreement with the defendant to sell him about 40 bullock hides at 7s. each (agreement read), but defendant only supplied plaintiff with a few of the hides, and plaintiff bought four hides for 15s. each about that time from another dealer. Went to considerable expense in making a place to salt and cure the hides, in which defendant did not supply.

Mr. Caldwell said that in the beginning of March last the hides were worth about 15s. each.

Verdict for plaintiff, £14 14s.

Charles v. Badman.-Claim for £5 on account of boat hire.

Mr. Smith for the plaintiff, who stated that on a recent occasion he took some passengers in his boat to near Fannie Bay. When they were returning, Mr. Badman and two troopers jumped into the boat alongside the Analgista and came back to Port Darwin in her. Plaintiff therefore demanded this £5 as payment for eight miles.

By defendant-Mr. Bieber was in the boat and also the bailiff, who had been onboard the Analgista. Charged Mr. Bieber 30s. for the use of the boat; and intended to charge the other passengers separately. There were three others, Mr. Badman and two men with him. It was between one and two o'clock at night when they returned, and the weather was mostly calm.

Sergeant Badman said he went on board the Analgista on duty, and whilst there Mr. Bieber said that defendant could come ashore in the (Mr. Bieber) had hired-the boat belonging plaintiff.

Mr. Bieber said he hired the boat to go down near Fannie Bay and back. Witness, Mr. Hunt, and the bailiff were the passengers. Nothing was said about bringing fresh passengers back. On returning paid 30s. to plaintiff. He did not demand anything more for being late. Mr. Badman got into the boat about eight miles from Port Darwin.

Judgment for £2 5s. Mr. Badman said he would have to pay it out of his own pocket, unless Mr. Bieber would pay it.

 

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 29 May 1874, p 3

LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.

Wednesdav, June 3.

Cause List.

Defended Causes.

Kaufmann-O'Connor v. Durand-Smith.

Smith-Lawrie v. Lindsay-Rudall.

Rudall-Marker v. Frew-Smith.

Rudall-Gray v. The English, Scottish, and Australian Chartered Bank-Smith.

Rudall-Fox v. Lathlain-Smith.

Rudall-Thomas v. Lathlain-Smith.

Rudall-Duncan v. Lathlain-Smith.

Rudall-Terry v. Lathlain-Smith.

 

 

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 5 June 1874, p 3

LAW COURTS.

LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.

Wednesday, June 3.

(Before Mr. Price, S.M., Hon. Thos. Reynolds, and Mr. Gardiner.)

An auctioneer's licence was granted to Mr. G. Minza.

Lawrie v. Lindsay-Mr. Smith for the plaintiff and Mr. Rudall for the defendant. Adjourned till next Court day, the costs to abide the event.

O'Connor v. Durand (adjourned case).-Dr. Kaufmann for the plaintiff and Mr. Smith for defendant.

This was a claim for £30 on account of passage money paid by plaintiff to McMeikan, Blackwood, & Co. for the passage of a young woman from Adelaide to Port Darwin. Her name was Selina Tiest. She lived with her mother in Adelaide, and was a very respectable young woman. Had intended to engage her at £70 per year for Mr. Marker at Southport. Had known her several months in Adelaide, and never knew her by any other name.

By Mr. Smith-Could not swear that the passage was refused by the young woman after it had been taken. Mr. Durand said he was the agent in this case. He signed the receipt for £30, but Mr. O'Connor did not give the name of the young woman. Secured the passage and sent the money down. Did not send the name of the young woman to Adelaide. Captain Pearce said he received a passage for Miss Selina Tiest. She took her passage and marked her berth, but on the day of sailing she went back again.

By Dr. Kaufmann-The steamer was in Adelaide about a week. The ladies' saloon was not full when the young woman took her berth.

Verdict for the defendant.

Marker v. Frew.-Mr. Rudall for the plaintiff and Mr. Smith for defendant. Postponed till next Full Court day.

Gray v. English and Scottish Banking Company.-Mr. Rudall for plaintiff and Mr. Smith for defendant.

To recover expenses for loss sustained on account of the manager of the Bank having failed to send a money order to Adelaide at the time promised. Nonsuit.

Several other cases on the list were settled out of Court.

 

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 10 July 1874, p 2

LAW COURTS.

LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.

Wednesday, July 1.

(Before Mr. Price, S.M., Mr. Lindsay, and Mr. Frew, J.P.'s.)

Westcott v. Marker.-Claim for £27 7s. 5d. on an unsatisfied judgment.

Mr. Smith appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Rudall for the defendant.

Mr. Marker was called, and produced a receipt, dated June 16th, in full of all demands, and amounting to £28. Mr. Westcott had signed it in witness's presence, at the Shackle.

Mr. Smith could not go on in face of the receipt; but he had heard nothing of that document from Mr. Westcott.

Case dismissed.

Lawrie v. Lindsay.-Claim for £31 13s.

Mr. Smith appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Rudall for the defendant.

Adjourned on account of the absence of the plaintiff.

Forster v. Haussen.-Claim for £100.

Mr. Rudall (in the absence of Dr. Kaufmann) for the plaintiff, and Mr. Smith for the defendant.

The amount claimed was for wages, £42, and for damages caused by breach of agreement. It appeared that, plaintiff was transferred from the New Port Darwin Company to the Port Darwin Gold Mining Company, of which Mr. Haussen was the Manager. He brought the present claim against defendant because defendant dismissed him.

Mr. Smith submitted that defendant was not liable in any way, inasmuch as he was only a servant, the same as the plaintiff himself. The plaintiff was suing his fellow servant and not the Companies for whom he had worked.

Mr. Rudall said Mr. Haussen was the Manager of the Company, and it was unjust that the plaintiff should lose his money through a technicality.

Nonsuit; as the wrong party had been sued, the Stipendiary Magistrate expressing an opinion that it was a pity Companies' servants allowed their wages to run on until they reached so very large an amount.

 

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 10 July 1874, pp 2-3

LAW COURTS.

LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.

Wednesday, July 1.

(Before Mr. Price, S.M., Mr. Lindsay, and Mr. Frew, J.P.'s.)

Millner v. Reynolds and others.-A Claim for £50 on an unpaid order. Mr. Smith for the plaintiff, and Mr. Rudall for Mr. Reynolds, one of the defendants.

The case against Mr. Reynolds was postponed on account of his absence.

Dr. Millner, the plaintiff was then called, and the case as against Mr. A. D. Gore was proceeded with. Plaintiff received the cheque produced from Mr. S. E. Reynolds about 12 months ago. It was afterwards dishonored. The Hon. T. Reynolds left the settlement about that time. Did not remember seeing any notice about that time that Mr. Gore, sen., had left the firm, or that there had been any change.

Mr. Smith said he was not suing Mr. Gore, sen., but Reynolds, Gore, and Company; that was young Mr. Samuel Reynolds, Mr. A. D. Gore, and a dormant partner whom they had since heard of.

C. Fry said the cheque for £50 was paid to witness for the sale of a horse about June, 1873. It then passed out of his hands. Believed the signature was in the writing of Mr. Samuel E. Reynolds. Had had a cheque for £42 signed in the same manner, and was obliged to keep it a long time. Received the cheque for £50 about the 10th June.

Mr. Gore said at that date the Messrs. Reynolds and himself were on their way to Adelaide, and the cheque must therefore have been drawn and dated before they left. They sailed at daylight on the 10th June. Was in partnership with Mr. S. Reynolds, he believed, at the present time. The partnership commenced on the 4th March, 1873. That was the firm of S. E. Reynolds and Company. They never signed "Reynolds, Gore, & Co." to his knowledge. Believed the cheque produced

was signed by S. E. Reynolds. Reynolds, Gore, & Co. dissolved on the 4th March, 1873. After the dissolution in March, witness became a member of the firm with Mr. S. E. Reynolds. Believed that on the 10th June S. E. Reynolds also became a partner with Mr. Durand in his firm. No notice had been given in the Gazette about changes in the firm; but only in the Adelaide papers. Had not seen any other cheque signed Reynolds, Gore, & Co. since the dissolution in March.

Mr. Smith wished at present only to show that Mr. Gore was liable; he would not ask for judgment until the Hon. T. Reynolds was present, and the case against him had been heard.

Adjourned till the next Court day; costs to abide the event.

 

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 10 July 1874, p 3

LAW COURTS.

LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.

Cause List.

Wednesday, July 13.

Limited Jurisdiction.

Defended Causes.

Smith-Solomon v. Fischer-Rudall.

Rudall-Giles v. Sebbes-Smith.

POLICE COURT-PALMERSTON.

Thursday, July 2.

(Before Mr. E. W. Price, S.M.)

Hugh Sharkey appeared to the information of Roger Ryan, on a demand for £15, due as wages from defendant to informant. The latter said that he was employed at £2 10s. per week and his board; and that £15 was due when he left the service. But defendant refused to pay him the amount due.

Defendant said he engaged Ryan, at the rate of £2 10s. per week for any work which he might have for him to do at Rum Jungle. Never engaged to employ him regularly; but said he would give him his food whilst he was at Tumbling Waters. He did 10 days' work altogether, at 8s. 4d. per day. Charged for his food whilst he was not at work. There was therefore a set-off against informant of £10 15s.; and he had been paid cash £4, with goods, tobacco, &c, amounting to £2 11s., which were supplied from the store.

The informant denied that he had received stores, and said that he had not received a great deal of the cash that had been sworn to.
The Magistrate said that the defendant's accounts were kept so irregularly, and there were so many contradictions, that it was impossible to rely on his statements.

Verdict for the informant, £13 and costs.

 

 

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 1 August 1874, p 2

LAW COURTS.

LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5.

FULL JURISDICTION.

CAUSE LIST.

UNSATISFIED JUDGMENT.

Radford v. Stretton.

APPEAL FROM POLICE COURT.

Caldwell v. Badman.

DEFENDED CAUSES.

Smith-Lawrie v. Lindsay-Rudall

Smith-Millner v. Reynolds and others-Rudall.

Smith-Starn v. Hanley-Rudall.

Smith-Caldwell v. Colgan-Rudall

Rudall-Skelton v. Caldwell (jury case)-Smith.

Smith-Caldwell v. Colgan-Rudall.

Rudall-Mallon v. Taylor-Smith.

 

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 15 August 1874, p 3

LAW COURTS.

LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.

TUESDAY, AUGUST 11.

(Before Mr. Price, S.M., Hon. Thos. Reynolds, and Mr. Gardiner, J.P.'s.)

Mr. Smith, on behalf of Mr. J. Jones, who was absent through illness, made an explanation in reference to the complaint made by the Hon. T. Reynolds the Thursday previous, and submitted that Mr. Jones did not apply offensive words to Mr. Reynolds as one of the Court, but merely as a private individual.

The Special Magistrate advised that Mr. Jones should be more careful for the future, as he was very apt to insult magistrates, and he might do it once too often.

Mr. Reynolds said he would consider whether or not he should lay an information on account of the words applied to him on the previous Wednesday.

 

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 15 August 1874, p 3

LAW COURTS.

LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.

TUESDAY, AUGUST 11.

(Before Mr. Price, S.M., Hon. Thos. Reynolds, and Mr. Gardiner, J.P.'s.)

Caldwell v. Colgan.-Claim for £75, balance of account. A set-off being admitted, left the total claim £36 7s.

Mr. Smith for the plaintiff, and Mr. Rudall for the defendant.

This was a question of accounts arising out of business transactions in a butchering trade which had been carried on by the defendant for the plaintiff, who produced a statement showing that he had paid various amounts on behalf of defendant; but the latter disputed many of the items, and also made other claims against the plaintiff than those which were allowed in the set-off, such claims being on account of commission in the purchase of buffaloes, as well as for the sale of a horse, the salting of hides, &c. A great deal of conflicting evidence was given by the plaintiff and the defendant; and a witness (Edward Sheppard) was called to speak as to the customs of the trade in some of the matters referred to. He considered that 10s. was the proper price for killing a buffalo here, and 1s. 6d. for killing a sheep, unless there were a large number, when the price might be 1s. each. The total set off put in by defendant was £59 9s. 10d., and he paid into Court 5s. 2d., and 5s. costs. This case occupied the whole day.

Verdict for plaintiff, £28 12s. 2d., including the sum paid into Court.

 

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 15 August 1874, p 3

LAW COURTS.

LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.

TUESDAY, AUGUST 11.

(Before Mr. Price, S.M., Hon. Thos. Reynolds, and Mr. Gardiner, J.P.'s.)

[The report of Caldwell v. Colgan (No. 2) next week.]

CAUSE LIST.

LIMITED JURISDICTION.

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 19.

DEFENDED CAUSES.

Smith-Sulumon v. Fischer-Rudall.

Rudall-Giles v. Sebbes-Smith.

Starn v. Hyland-Rudall.

Rudall-Ring v. Woodward and

Another.

Rudall-Colgan v. Hunt.

Rudall-Skelton v. Sers.

 

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 22 August 1874, p 3

LAW COURTS.

LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 7.

Full Jurisdiction

(Before Mr. Price, S.M., the Hon. T. Reynolds, and Mr. Gardiner.)

Caldwell v. Colgan.-Claim for £53 1s. 5d.

Mr. Smith for the plaintiff, and Mr. Rudall for the defendant.

This claim arose out of an agreement, which the parties entered into for the purchase and killing of cattle.

The evidence related solely to matters of account, and the chief question at issue was as to the validity of the agreement and the cost of tailing the cattle. After hearing the conflicting statements of both parties, the Court gave judgment for the plaintiff.

Verdict, £41 18s. 4d.

WEDNESDAY, August 19.

LIMITED JURISDICTION.

(Before Mr. E. W. Price, S.M.)

Solomon v. Fischer.-Mr. Smith said that this case had been settled by defendant having made an apology.

Giles v. Sebbes.-Claim for £5.

Mr. Rudall for plaintiff; Mr. Smith for defendant.

Mr. Rudall said that the plaintiff was unavoidably absent, but, he would go on with the case by calling the defendant, and then it would be unnecessary for him to be present, at the adjourned case. The evidence of defendant was therefore taken, and he stated that he offered a reward of £5 for the recovery of a lost mare. The mare was found by the plaintiff, but witness had not yet paid the £5, although he had recovered the mare. His reason for not paying was because plaintiff told witness that his charge was £2. He said nothing about £5, though he had said verbally that he would offer £5 for the recovery of the mare. Was afterwards annoyed at being summoned for £5, and refused to pay.

Adjourned till next Court day for the attendance of the plaintiff.

Starn v. Hyland.-Claim for £4 3s. 3d.

Dr. Kaufmann for plaintiff; Mr. Rudall for defendant.

This was a claim on account of bread delivered by plaintiff to defendant whilst plaintiff was in partnership with another baker. The debt was admitted; but the defendant said that plaintiff's partner had incurred a debt, for drink, &c., amounting to £3 10s., which debt was admitted by the partner, who had signed a receipt for the amount.

The defendant, P. Hyland, said that the plaintiff's partner, Hanley, had received money from witness, and also obtained drink, and board and lodging. Frequently settled with Hanley; and did not know anything about Starn, excepting as a partner.

At present only owed 13s. 3d. to the firm.

The Court said that a partner of a firm had no right to discharge a debt by setting off a debt of his own, as in this case.

Verdict for the plaintiff.

Ring v. Woodward and Another-Claim for £17.

Mr. Rudall for the plaintiff; Dr. Kaufmann for the defendant Woodward.

In this case the plaintiff lent a boat, called the Lucy, to the defendants, under an agreement, to the effect that they were to make good all damage done to the boat, besides paying 30s. per week; but all repairs arising from fair usage were to be paid for by the plaintiff. They, however, damaged the boat in such a way that plaintiff was compelled to make the present claim.

The plaintiff, Herbert Ring, said he had received £2 10s. rent for the use of the boat, but defendants capsized the boat and allowed her to come ashore. She was a boat of about four tons, and defendants hoisted the sails and then "went aloft," which caused her to capsize, and she went ashore on the rocks, where they allowed her to remain, although plaintiff called them to come and get her off. There were about 20 timbers broken and other damage down, which was all the result of carelessness. Offered to take £12 from defendants to settle the matter, but they refused. The value of the boat, was £45. The gear was in good condition, and not rotten. If the defendants had not allowed the boat to remain on the rocks, she would not have been injured.

Dr. Kaufmann cross-examined the plaintiff on the part of Woodward, and Mr. Sers on behalf of the other defendant, with a view to show that there had been no negligence or carelessness.

Verdict for plaintiff for the amount claimed.

Colgan v. Hunt.-Claim for £15 13s. 2d.

Mr. Rudall for the plaintiff.

The defendant pleaded that he was not indebted excepting as to £6 3s. 3 1/2d., which he paid into Court.

The dispute in this case was in reference to a butcher's account.

Plaintiff said that all the items were properly entered, and that the charges were fair and regular. But the defendant denied this, and called Mrs. Hunt to show that she had not been served with some of the meat which was put down to her.

The plaintiff admitted a set-off for board supplied to himself, and the only question remaining was as to 12s. 6d. for some veal.

Verdict for the amount paid into Court, without costs.

Skelton v. Sers.-Claim for £6 6s. 4d. Mr. Rudall for the plaintiff.

Defendant paid £3 12s. 4d, into Court and disputed the remainder of the amount, which was on account of some brandy said to have been supplied to the defendant.

Adjourned till Friday morning for the presence of an absent witness.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 21.

(Before Mr. E. W. Price, S.M.)

SkeIton v. Sers.-Claim for £6 6s. 4d. Mr. Rudall for the plaintiff.

In this case (which was adjourned from the previous Wednesday), Mr. Rudall called a witness.

Herbert Ludlow, who said that he delivered to defendant the two gallons of bandy which were now disputed. Bottled it off for him in the cellar, and took it to his private residence, where it was delivered to a boy. The entry of the delivery was made in the book produced on the same day-the 1st of May.

Defendant cross-examined the witness with a view to show that in previous cases mistakes had been make as to goods delivered.

Mr. Rudall called the plaintiff, Mr. Skelton, who said he was positive the brandy had been delivered and not paid for.

Defendant then called Mrs. Travers, who said she was not aware of two gallons of brandy being delivered on the 1st of May. She remembered that plaintiff made a wrong entry as to some limejuice supplied.

The defendant also gave evidence, and was positive that the two gallons of brandy were never supplied. Had offered to pay the £2 14s. to the Hospital Fund if Mr. Skelton would pay an equal amount; but he declined to do so. The book produced by witness showed that no brandy was entered on the 1st of May.

Verdict for amount claimed; the Magistrate remarking that where the evidence was so contradictory he was bound to take the books produced by Mr. Skelton.

 

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 29 August 1874, p 2

LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2.

FULL JURISDICTION.

APPEALS AGAINST ASSESSMENTS.

Adcock v. District Council of Palmerston.

Gore and Another v. Same.

Peters v. Same.

Limmer v. Same.

Lindsay v. Same.

K.S. & A.C. Bank v. Same.

Wilkinson v. Same.

Durand v. Same.

Minza v. Same.

UNSATISFIED JUDGMENTS.

Radford v. Stretton.

Lawrie and Others v. Lindsay.

Lawrie v. Lindsay.

INTERPLEADER.

Smith-Gregory v. Fischer (Adcock and Another, claimants)-Kaufmann.

DEFENDED CAUSES.

Smith-Haussen v. Straubel-Kaufmann.

 

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 5 September 1874, p 2

LAW COURTS.

LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.

(Before Mr. E. W. Price, S.M.)

Tuesday, September 1

(In Chambers.)

Ayliffe v. Mackie.-The defendant in this case, which was heard some time ago, applied by Mr. Smith, his counsel, to set aside the judgment which was then given, as defendant had not received proper notice, and was able to make a good defence.

Mr. Smith said that the documents which were in his possession would show that plaintiff had no ground of claim at all.

Dr. Kaufmann opposed the application, and said that defendant had had full opportunity to appear, and there was no reason for setting the judgment aside.

The application was granted; costs to abide the issue.

 

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 5 September 1874, p 3

LAW COURTS.

LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.

Wednesday, September 2.

(Before Mr. Price, S.M., Mr. Frew, J.P., and Mr. Gardiner, J.P.)

APPEALS AGAINST DISTRICT COUNCIL

ASSESSMENT.

J. Lindsay-Store and quarter-acre land, Mitchell-street; valued at £120 rental. Mr. Lindsay applied that the sum be reduced to £75.

Reduced to £80.

J. Frew-Dwelling-house and half-acre of land, Smith-street; Valued at £100 rental. Confirmed.

English & Scottish Banking Company-Half-acre of land and offices, Smith-street; valued at £150 rental.

Reduced to £100.

-Wilkinson-Vacant allotment, Smith-street; valued at £35.

Confirmed.

E. Durand-Place of business, Mitchell-street; valued at £100 rental.

Reduced to £70.

W. E. Adcock-Store and dwelling-house in Smith-street; valued at £120 rental. Mr. Smith applied for a reduction on the ground that the premises would not fetch £20 a year if they were to be let at the present moment. Evidence was called to show that a store and allotment of land in Mitchell-street (Mr. Clark's) was offered for sale, and that only £120 was bid for it. That place was valued at £80. Another witness stated that a small baker's shop in Smith-street had just been let for 25s. a week.

Assessment reduced to £80, without costs.

  1. & H. Gore-Business stores, Mitchell-street; valued at £120 rental.
  2. Reduced to £80.

-Limmer-Cottage and land, Esplanade; valued at £30 rental.

Confirmed.

O. Peters-Place of business, Mitchell-street; valued at £150 rental.

Reduced to £100.

G. Minza-Cottage and land, Esplanade; valued at £50 rental.

Confirmed.

Unsatisfied Judgment.

 

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 5 September 1874, p 3

LAW COURTS.

LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.

Wednesday, September 2.

(Before Mr. Price, S.M., Mr. Frew, J.P., and Mr. Gardiner, J.P.)

Radford v. Stretton.-Claim for £17 15s.

Mr. Smith for plaintiff, and Mr. Rudall for defendant.

The amount claimed was for costs incurred in a case between the parties, and which the defendant had agreed to pay.

Mr. Rudall asked for a review of the costs, as some of them were four times too high.

Case struck out, in order that the costs might be reviewed.

Ayliffe v. Mackie.-Claim for £25.

Dr. Kaufmann for the plaintiff, and Mr. Smith for the defendant.

Nonsuit. ...

Lawrie and Another v. Lindsay.

Claim for £102.

Mr. Smith for the plaintiff and Mr. Rudall for the defendant, who was not in attendance, and who was therefore fined £5, or one month's imprisonment in default.

The plaintiff was called, and said that £50. had been offered him as satisfaction for the debt of £102, but witness refused, because he knew that defendant possessed property in Victoria, and had been employed at the rate of £9 per week here, though he was out of employment now.

Defendant was ordered to pay £50 down, and the remainder in the course of two months.

Lawrie v. Lindsay-Claim for £32.

This case was exactly similar to the other one. Payment ordered to be made in 12 weeks.

Rickards v. Miller.-Claim for £100, on a partnership account.

Dr. Kaufmann for the plaintiff, and Mr. Rudall for the defendant.

Plaintiff said he paid £800, when he went into partnership with the defendant, and £400 afterwards, and the defendant had got rid of the money. Witness left the firm under an agreement that he was to be paid a portion of the capital back, in quarterly instalments, and the £100 now sued for was the first instalment.

After some further evidence the case was adjourned for a fortnight in order that the books of the firm might be produced.

 

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 12 September 1874, p 2

LAW COURTS.

LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.

Limited Jurisdiction.

Cause List.

Wednesday, September 10.

Rudall-Giles v. Sebbes-Smith.

Colgan v. Packard.

Smith-Smith v. Reynolds-Rudall.

Smith-Hart v. Caldwell and Another-Kaufmann.

 

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 19 September 1874, p 2

LAW COURTS.

LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.

Limited Jurisdiction.

Wednesday, September 16.

(Before Mr. E. W. Price, S.M.)

Giles v. Sebbes.-Claim for £5,

for finding and returning a horse

belonging to defendant.

Mr. Rudall for defendant.

This was a case adjourned in order that additional evidence might be produced to show the nature of the agreement entered into, and whether or not plaintilf offered to take the sum of £2. After plaintiff's brother had been examined, the Court gave verdict for £2, and the cost of the first day's proceedings.

Hart v. Caldwell.-Claim for £15.

Mr. Smith for the plaintiff, and Dr. Kaufmann for defendant.

Patrick Hart, publican, said he purchased the goods and lease of the Commercial Hotel from Fischer, after which the bailiff came to make a seizure for £15 rent. Paid the £15, and told the bailiff to hold the amount until the case was settled. Had bought the goods, &c, of Fischer; and knew nothing about defendant's claim. Did not know the bailiff was in possession. Further evidence was taken to show that the bailiff had distrained, and Hart ought reasonably to have known this when he took possession. A verdict was therefore given for £3, without costs; the remainder of the money being levied on Fischer's goods, and not paid by Hart.

Rickards v. Miller.-Referred to arbitration.

 

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 3 October 1874, pp 2-3

LAW COURTS.

LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.

FULL JURISDICTION.

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7.

APPLICATION FOR AUCTIONEER'S LICENCE.

V. L. Solomon.

CAUSE LIST.

UNSATISFIED JUDGMENT.

Caldwell v. Miller.

APPEALS FROM WARDEN'S COURT.

Brock v. Griffiths.

Millner v. Peters.

DEFENDED CAUSES.

Kaufmann-Bieber v. Williams-Rudall.

Kaufmann-Beetson v. Caldwell - Smith.

JURY CASE.

Rudall - Skelton v. Caldwell - Smith.

POLICE COURT-PALMERSTON.

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 24.

(Before Mr. E. W. Price, S.M.)

Luie, a Chinaman, was charged with having unlawfully entered upon the premises of Mrs. Cox, on the evening of the Saturday when he went to make enquiries concerning the wife of Ab Doolah; and after some evidence had been taken the case was dismissed, the Magistrate remarking, in reference to what had fallen earlier in the day from Mr. Smith, that Inspector Foelsche was not open to blame for neglect of duty in connection with the previous case,  as it was not a part of his duty to be a common informer and he had done all that he could have been expected to do.

Henry John Blankley was charged with disobeying the orders of his master, John Frew. The disobedience was proved, and the defendant, who was engaged under a written agreement (produced), was asked if he would return to his work. He refused, and the Court therefore ordered him to be imprisoned for one calendar month.

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28.

(Before Mr. E. W. Price, S.M.)

Maria Gleeson, otherwise Webb, was charged on the information of J. A. F. Hunt, publican, with having stolen various articles of clothing, etc., from his residence in Palmerston on the 6th of July last.

Mr. Smith for the prosecution, and Mr. Rudall for the prisoner.

Mr. Hunt said that on or about the 6th July the prisoner and her reputed husband, Webb, came to his hotel and asked to stop there. The things now missed (female clothing and towels) were in the room which they occupied, and were missed immediately afterwards. Prisoner left for Southport at the time, and witness never saw her again until last night. Nobody else had been in the room, and the prisoner and Webb were there about 24 hours. When she left she had a largo bundle under her arm. The things were in the room, tied up in a bundle when prisoner took possession of the room.

This evidence was confirmed by Mrs. Hunt, who said she went into the room an hour and a half after prisoner left and the things were gone. Before prisoner went away she admitted having untied the bundle of things to get a towel out.

Remanded for eight days in order that a search might be made for the missing things. Bail to be taken two sureties of £10 each, as soon as the search warrant was put in execution.

William George Goodchild was charged, as the agent of the Telegraph Mining Company, on the information of John Roberts with having failed to pay £30, wages due to the plaintiff.

Mr. Smith for the plaintiff, and Mr. Rudall for the defendant.

The plaintiff said Mr. Goodchild

was in charge of the Telegraph Company's works, and the Company had paid witness various cheques for wages, which the Bank had dishonored. Had been put to loss and damage in consequence to the amount of £25 or £30. Mr. Goodchild told the men that it was no use for them to stop, as the Company was being wound up. Some of the cheques were dated the 10th of August; but did not send them down. Presented the cheques at the Bank about the 10th September.

This evidence was confirmed by

John Rooney, who said that Mr.

Goodchild announced himself as the Manager before the men left. Mr. Rudall said no doubt the money was due but the Company was in liquidation.

Verdict for £30, damages £7 12s. and costs, making £39 14s.

John Rooney claimed £23 6s. 8d., wages due to himself by the same Company.

Verdict, with costs, &c., £33 0s. 8d.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7.

(Before Mr. E. W. Price, S.M.)

J. A. G. Little was called to the

complaint of Robert Price for refusing to pay £30, alleged to be due to the plaintiff as balance on account of services as mailman under a contract with the Government.

Mr. Rudall for the plaintiff.

Mr. Smith, who appeared for Mr. Little, submitted that as this was a matter of contract it could not possibly be brought under the Master and Servant's Act. He quoted various authorities to show that this was the case, and that the plaintiff was never a "servant " of the defendants, within the meaning of the law.

Mr. Rudall said that the 3rd clause of the Master and Servant's Act declared that "all persons" engaged to perform work by piece or in gross were included in the description "servant."

The Magistrate said there was no jurisdiction in the Police Court. The case should be brought in the civil court.

Mr. Smith applied for costs; but the magistrate said he had no power to give costs as the Court had no jurisdiction in the case.

 

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 10 October 1874, p 2

LAW COURTS.

POLICE COURT-PALMERSTON.

Tuesday, October 6.

(Before Mr. E. W. Price, S.M.)

Marin Gleeson appeared on remand, charged with stealing some wearing apparel and other articles from Mr. Hunt, publican, at Palmerston.

The police said they had not found any of the stolen articles amongst the defendant's things.

The Magistrate said there was merely a suspicion against the prisoner, and she could therefore be discharged. Dismissed.

Leen Kong, a Chinamen, was charged with having stolen a tin can, value 2s. 6d., at Palmerston, on the 24th September.

Sergeant Badman said he missed the tin can from his quarters, and afterwards found it in prisoner's possession at the Chinese camp. The can had been taken from under the verandah.

The prisoner said he picked the can up.

Seven days' imprisonment with hard labor.

 

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 10 October 1874, pp 2-3

LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.

Full Jurisdiction.

Wednesday, October 7.

(Before Mr. E. W. Price, S.M., Mr. Gore and Mr. Gardiner, J.P.'s.)

An auctioneer's license was granted to Mr. V. L. Solomon.

Caldwell v. Miller.-Unsatisfied judgment, £78 14s. 11d.

Mr. Smith for the plaintiff, and Mr. Rudall for the defendant.

Mr. Smith wished to say that in a previous case he referred to Mr. Miller in a way which he now regretted, as he had ascertained that in the matter referred to Mr. Miller was harshly dealt with.

J. D. Miller, the defendant, said he received goods from McCallum, Neil, and Co. whilst in the firm of Miller and Rickards. The total was £316 12s. l0d. Against this he had paid McCallum & Co. £120 12s. 10d. The goods were all sold, and the profits were probably about 5 percent., or £15 on the £300. Received from Swallow & Ariel, goods £160 18s. 8d. Sent these up to Yam Creek, and paid cost of sending up, after which they were sold tor about £60. Got goods also from S. Henderson, £159 3s. 3d. and £44 5s. 11d. There was no profit on this consignment as a whole. Also from McEwen & Co., £19 6s. 6d. Never got paid for these goods, as Marker became insolvent. Never kept a cash book, excepting the one produced. Had vouchers for everything mentioned there. Did remarkably well at first. The boat they had paid for herself. Had paid Henderson £57 11s. out of £202. Still owed McCallum & Co. £202 11s. Owed Lang & Webster £25 9s. 2d. for soft goods. Rickards received £400 from Melbourne, and £390 was put to the credit of firm. There was also £800 belonging to Rickards in May, 1873. Received from Lindsay and Co., £120 12s. to pay for vegetables; also acceptance at three months for £140 from Lindsay. Received £81 19s. from Mr. Caldwell; also £30; and goods amounting to £337 in one case, and £78 15s. in another. There was a loss on these goods, and, therefore, gave an acceptance of £50 at three months. Never said that there was a profit of more £100 on the goods. There was a loss; but no particulars were kept at Yam Creek of Caldwell's goods separate from the rest. Got goods from Mr. Sinclair, £106 12. Had paid for these in full; but owed him £17 in other matters. Borrowed £500 from Sebbes for Miller & Co. Sebbes had since purchased the Yam Creek store. All the goods were disposed of. But some also went bad, and were useless. The £3,500 of goods and money just detailed were the totals that he had received. Had never sent money away except through the Bank, beyond a £10 order. Had no capital when entering business. Had furniture in Melbourne. Believed it would not sell for more than about £90. Had made a profit of about £200 by storage at Southport. The store at Yam Creek was a loss. Defendant proceeded to detail the losses which he had sustained in business.

Mr. Smith would ask for an adjournment in order that plaintiff might have an opportunity or examining the books, and showing that property must have been concealed, as the evidence at present did not show such losses as would account for the deficiency.

Adjourned till the November Court.

 

Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 10 October 1874, p 3

LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.

Full Jurisdiction.

Wednesday, October 7.

(Before Mr. E. W. Price, S.M., Mr. Gore and Mr. Gardiner, J.P.'s.)

 

Bieber v. Williams.--Claim for £58.

Dr. Kaufmann for the plaintiff, and Mr. Rudall for the defendant.

Mr. Bieber's evidence was to the effect that he was part owner in claim, No. 2 north, Union; and understanding that Williams was also a part owner, wrote to him to put two men to work on the claim. Also telegraphed to him to superintend the survey personally. In the course of the operations an expenditure was incurred, for which defendant was considered to be responsible to the extent of one-fourth--the amount now claimed. After a great deal of evidence had been taken, and a set-off put in for board and lodging at defendant's hotel at the Shackle, the Court gave judgment for the plaintiff. £25.

Beetson v. Caldwell.-Claim for £21, on account of damage done by defendant's buffaloes in plaintiff's garden.

Dr. Kaufmann for plaintiff, and Mr. Smith for defendant.

Nonsuit, on the ground that the claim had not been made within the time required by the Impounding Act.

Skelton v. Caldwell.--(Jury case)--Adjourned till the next sittings.

Appeals from Warden's Court.

Brock v. Griffiths.--Mr. Rudall, for the applicant, asked for an adjournment for one month. Had endeavored to get a case stated to be brought on for appeal, but had not succeeded. Had drawn up a case, but Mr. Smith, the counsel on the other side, had not agreed to it. Had since written to the Warden at the Shackle, and had received only very meagre and incomplete information, as the record was very brief indeed.

Mr. Smith submitted that the Court had no power to grant an adjournment. No case had been agreed upon, and there was none ready to be stated. The Court could do nothing but strike out the appeal. Under the Mining Act there was no power given of adjourning in a case like the present.

Adjourned to the 28th October; and the same decision was given in the case of Millner v. Peters.

The Court adjourned.

 

 

Published by Centre for Comparative Law, History and Governance at Macquarie Law School