ASHBURTON-THURSDAY.
(Before Captain Wray, R,M ) 1 OBSTBUCTINO A THOROUGHFARE. Thomas Magee who had been given a month m which to shift a horse w,hioh was obstructing a thoroughfare m the Ashburton district, was charged with having failed to comply with the order of the Court. Evidence having been taken the Magistrate said that as the defendant had been cautioned and had had a month given him m which to remove the horse, he wcnld now impose a penalty, A fine of 40s and coats, with the alternative of 7 days imprisonment. KEIR V DBUBY. Mr Caygill, for defendant m this aotion, at a previous Court day applied for coats of his client on one or two informations that had baen withdrawn, prior to the one that was proceeded with being laid. The Magistrate made no order. CIVIL OASES. Mitchell and Turner v D. Jaokson, claim £4 Os 4d. Judgment for plaintiff by default. Moiaon v Twoniey, judgment summons, £2 3s 6d. Order made for payment m two monthly instalments, m default a weeks imprisonment.
D. Wilson v Wakanui Road Board. la this oase m wh<oh the plaintiff had been non-suited at a previous Court day the question of costs was now argued. Mr Wilding for plaintiff submitted that this was not a oase m which defendants could properly claim cost?, Mr White replied. The Magistrate said that he had previously adjourned the case thinking the Road Board might not press the question of costs, but seeing that fhey had pressed for costs he did not see how he oould make any distinction m this case. Defendants would be allowed costs.
F. T. Mayo v J. H. Brooks, claim £13 13s. Mr Purnell for plaintiff, Mr Cuthberlson for defendant. The claim was for rent of a bouse. The house had been let through Messrs Ward and Son and defendant alleged that he had been giving Mr Charles Ward's son musio lessons and that Mr Ward had agreed to pay the sum of £9 Us 6d, owing for tuition, to Mr Mayo on account of the rent. — Mr Ward denied having made any Buoh arrangement. — Judgment for amount claimed. Emma Todd v D. Brown, claim £30. — Mr Cuthbertson for plaintiff, Mr Orisp for defendant. — The claim was for the return of a box belonging to plaintiff, a general servant, whioh box was alleged to have been improperly retained by defendant, and also a claim was made for £5 for damages alleged to have been sustained through the detention. The plaintiff's case was that she had been m the employ of defendant, and had left suddenly, leaving her box. She sent a man for her box, but Mr Brown declined to give it up. Witness went herself subsequently, but Mr Brown would not give up the box unless witness opened it. Witness declined to do this and ultimately issued a summons, but had not.'she alleged, yet seen the box. In consequence of her not having the box which, con* tamed most of her clothing she had lost a situation. She could not replace the box and contents under £30. — J. Miles, carrier, said that he went for the box, Mr Brown refused to give it up unless the plaintiff went for it herself. Plaintiff went with witness subsequently, but they did not get the box.-— Thos, Langley accompanied plaintiff to Mr Brown's on one occasion. Mr Brown offered to pay the carriage of the box, if it was opened. Witness said it was too late then, beoause a summons was out, and considerable expense inourred. — This was plaintiff's oase. — D. Brown, the defendant, said that he wanted the boi opened m the pre enoe of his wife. His reason was beoause, after plaintiff left without notios m the middle of the day he missed a number of articles — handkerchiefs, ouffs, etc. The plaintiff left suddenly m the middle of the day and had then a large papar parcel with her. After the second interview with the plaintiff, witness sent the' box to Mrs #here she told witness she was lodging. On the following morning the carrier brought the box back saying that Mrs Bhodda had sent it. Witness told the carrier to take it back again. — Tinmore, a lad m the employ of Mr Brown said that when plaintiff was leaving he saw her with a big parcel "as ?much as she oould carry." — Sußan Bhodda said that the plaintiff had been stopping with her. Remembered a box being left at her place. Plaintiff saw the box and said that witness oughtn't to have taken it, and that she had better qend it baok again. Witness sent the box baok, but it was again brought to her place. Plaintiff was not stopping there then and witness said she didn't want the box. The carrier left it, however, and it was now m an outhouse. — J. Dalley, carrier, took a box to M-s Rhodda's. —Counsel haying addressed th Court, the Magistrate 'Said that the plaint.ff had left defendants employ without notice' 1 and ' m a peculiar mapnpr. -l^efendajnt, no doubt, 'had pome cause for his 'suspicion,, but he did not a'dppt the right cause to have followed. |n the opinion of the Court the fairest way would be to order the box to be returned and delivered at plaintiff's place of residence, defendant also to pay costs.
J. O'Donnell vT. Dwyer, olaim £15. Mr Caygill for plaintiff, Mr Crisp for defendant. Plaintiff had been the owner of the racehorse, Olive, and he sold a half interest m her to defendant for £15. Plaintiff had an interest m saying at what races the mare should run, and he had nominated her for tbe ELlesmere meeting. He had paid the expenses of the mare going to Ellesmere. He had had an aooount from Dwyer for expenses, whioh he repudiated. After Ellesmere he had written to lawyer telling him not to nominate the mace at Ashburton. : ' Mr Crisp submitted that' the transaction had been a partnership one from tbe beginning and plaintiff was liable for half share of the expenses id ponneption with the funning of the mare. Defendant gave evidence to the effect that' hg had arranged with plaintiff to take tbe m.a,ra and prepare her for raceß.defenda.nt to have half share m any profits. Witness afterwards agreed to give £15 for a half share m tbe mare, the expenses of training, nominations, etc., to be borne equally by witness and plaintiff. The mare had ooet defendant some £30 and she bad not won anything. WitDflss had never paid the £15. Judgment fo? pla|aliflE with qolti). '■ '.: '■ '&■'. !;' ]; " i •?. ; ?etriman v T, H. Zouoh, olaim £10. M* Purnell for plaintiff, Mr Cuthbertson for defendant, Judgment for tv>* *^ O y a J; claimed. [Left sitting.]
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AG18880712.2.21.1
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1891, 12 July 1888, Page 3
Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,126ASHBURTON-THURSDAY. Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1891, 12 July 1888, Page 3
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.