AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 2, Issue 145, 7 December 1877, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

; «. Tuesday, Dec 4. (Before His Worship the Mayor, and G. H, Saxton, Esq., J.P.) FURIOUS KIDING. S. Woodill, G Brown, and W. Wright were each fined £1 and costs for the.above offence within the boundaries of the Borough. CATTLE TBESPASS. J. Everall, E. Lelievre, J. Aylmer, and R. Bayley were respectively fined 5s and costs for allowing their horses to be wandering at large. Civil Cases. . . ASSAULT. J. Glynan v. J. Moeraki.—Mr Nalder appeared for the plaintiff, case dismissed, each party to pay his own costs.

A cross. summons — J. Moeraki v. J. Glynan—was also dismissed, each party to pay his own costs.

j. Moeraki v. G. 11. Glynan.—Mr Nalder appeared for the defendant. This was also a case for assault arising out of the previous cases. Having heard the evidence, the Bench fined the defendant 5s anil costs.

. In ,a. counter charge—G. H. Glynan v. J. Moeraki —the defendant w r as iiued 5s and costs.

J. Moeraki v. J. Glynan.—Mr Nalder for the defendant. This wasAv claim for £1, b*'ing the value of a pig, the property of the plaintiff and alleged to be in the possession of the defendant. Case dismissed, each party to pay his own costs. J. Daly v. \V. Armstrong.—Mr Nalder for the plaintiff. This was a claim for _?_-. Tho debt heimr admitted, judgment

was given for amount claimed with costs. W. Widdicombe v. J. Lines—Mr Nalder for the defendant. In this case the plaintiff fought to, recover the sum of £20 0s 6d for non-coinpletioii of a bargain in the purchase of a horse. The evidence adduced wentto show that thp plaintiff had agreed to giV3 a "certain sum for ahorse, and had paid down a deposit of 6s on tho bargain. When ho went to claim the horse, the defendant denied having sold him the one he claimed, but offered him another, which, however, plaintiff refused to take as not being the horse he had purchased. The defendant said that the plaintiff had never purchased the horse he alleged to have bought, but the one that was offered to him when he came to his place for it. The horse the plaintiff wanted to claim was a far more valuable animal, and he would not sell it. Further evidence having- been heard as to the relative value of the"horses, arid also to the bargain made, the Bench gave judgment for defendant with costs.