RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume III, Issue 646, 26 May 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

ASHBURTON. -To-day. Before Joseph Berwick, Esq., R.M., and Mr 0. P. Cox, J.P.)

Electoral Holt, Cases. —A. G. Earle was called upon to show cause why his name should not be struck off the electoral roll for Wakanui. —Sergeant Felton said thafEarlehad quitted the district and gone to Invercargill. Ho would ask for an ad-journment.-—Mr Wilding remarked that ho had been instructed to appear for the defence in the whole of tho registration cases, and would ask that service of summons might be proved in each case. —Mr Purnell said that ho had been retained in a number of those cases. Mr Garrick was to have boon present to prosecute, but yesterday he had sent down a telegram to say that he would bo unable to appear owing to indisposition. Under these circumstances ho (Mr Purnell) would ask that the cases might stand adjourned until Monday next. Of course there wore several persons summoned who would not appear owing to their having left for distant parts of tho colony, and their names could be called and struck out on tho non-appearance of the parties.—Mr Wilding did not understand what Mr Purnell had to do with the cases.— He hud not been retained by Mr Ward, for that gentleman had just informed him so. —Mr Purnell said he had boon retained. —Tho Bench asked Mr Ward to explain the position.—Mr Ward explained that Mr Purnell had been retained by the late Registrar, and not by himself. He would, however, retain him then.—Tho whole of the cases were then adjourned until this day week.

CIVIL CASES. P. Tisch v. M. Eider.—. Judgment summons. Claim Ll 3 odd. Mr Wilding appeared for plaintiff, and asked that, an order might bo made for the committal of the defendant, failing the payment by him of the amount due within a reasonable time. Ho (Mr Wilding) was prepared to bring evidence to show that defendant was able to pay. Ordered to pay amount within one month, or in default one month’s imprisonment. [Mr Oox here left tho Bench.] Matson, Cox and Co. v. Le Breton. —Application for rehearing. Mr Branson, for defendant, asked the Bench to grant a rehearing of this case, on the ground that the summons was served upon the wrong person—upon the father instead of upon the son. Mr Crisp, who appeared for the plaintiff, had consented to a rehearing provided that the amount was paid into Court, but this would bo absurd, as tho son was tho actual defendant, and not tho father.—P. Lo Breton said ho had never owed the firm of Matson, Cox and Co. a penny. The summons was served upon witness at the saleyards by the bailiff of the Court. Ho refused to take it, hut the bailiff ran after him and thrust it into his pocket. He understood that the summons would be served again and thought no more about it. Mr Branson said the mistake had arisen in consequence of his client being very hard of hearing.— Mr Crisp said that the father was the man whom the firm had intended to serve, intended to sue, and intended to get a judgment against, and they had done all three. Be strongly objected to a rehearing, but if one was granted then he would ask that tho money might be paid into Court. —Ills Worhip refused to grant a re-heaving unless tho money in dispute was paid into Court. Had Mr Crisp not made that offer ho would not have entertained the application for a re-hearing at all. —On being asked by his counsel (Mr Branson) whether lie would pay the money into Court, Me Le Breton, senior, said ho would not, as ho did not owe a penny of it,—Mr I'ransou then said that if the plaintiffs proceeded to enforce their claim ho would bring an action for trespass against them. The parties then loft the Court.

11l the following cases judgment want by default for the amount claimed with costs : Clark v. Coulter, LI 6s Od ; M Tverrow and Co. v. Fergusson, LBS la 9d; Puddicombe v. Clark, L 3 ss; Duncan v. Patton, L2 ss; Steele v. Eden, LI. Tiie Court then rose.