AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume V, Issue 433, 14 September 1880, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, September 10, 1880,

(Befoue Justin Aylmer, Esq., R M.) AFFILIATION. Phillis Ilamniond made a claim against Duncan Urquhart for the support of her illegitimate child, a boy of two years and six months, of which she alleged he was the father. Mr Nalder appeared for the plaintiff!. Plaintiff, being sworn, said the defendant had lived in her father's house for twelve months, and that during that time she had been intimate with him ; that he had left her father's house and gone to live with Mr Gordon ; that whilst there she had been intimato with him again in Mr G-ordon's house in the month of May, 1877, and that the child had been born in the February following. Defendant had left the Bay previous to that time, and she had only beer, able to find him a few weeks ago, or she would have made the claim before. James Hammond being called said ho was father to tho plaintiff ; that the defendant had lived twelve months at his house ; that he had left and gone to live with Mr Gordon ; that before lie had left the B;iy his (witness's) attention had been drawn to tho fact of hia daughter's being pregnant, and he had taxed defendant with being th<j father, but he had denied it. His daughter hud only lately acknowledged to him that Urquhurt was (he father, but ho hud been previously told by Mrs Gordon such wii'i the case.

Grace Gordon being called said she was the wife of James Gordon ; that nlie had been asked by Mr 11.-iinmond to try and find out from the plaintiff.' who was the father of her child ; that in compliance she had had some conversation with the girl, who had distinctly denied Urquhart's being the father. (She (witness) had never told Mr Hammond Uiquhart had admitted the fact ; all that she liai said was that she had heard it stated that such was the fact.

James Gordon being called stated that Urquhnrt had never said to him that he was father to the child.

Mr Nalder requested his Worship to look at the child, and see if it was not very like to defendant.

Defendant had nothing to say ; his pritr cipal witnesses were all away. He thought it wo ild be very hard to father the child on him after so long an interval, especially as the plaintiff had on more than one occasion distinctly denied hi 3 being the father.

Mr Nalder applied for an order to be made, in accordance with clause 7 of the Destitute Persons Relief Ordinance, 1877.

The Bench thought no corroborative evidence had been adduced, and according to the Act could not make an order.

Mr Nalder contended that it was very hard to obtain corroborative evidence.

His Worship said ho thought the clause was a very necessary one, as otherwise men would never be safe. He should dismiss the case. CIVIL CASES. G. Black v H. Waghorn. Claim, £7 14s 3d.—This was a judgment summons. Defendant pleaded poverty and sickness, but Raid he had just got into work, and would pay half the debt in two months' time, and the balance in another two months. The Bench made an order accordingly to that effect. D. Holding v J. Sunckcll. Claim £10, for repairs to a dray. Mr Nalder appeared for the plaintiff. His Worship stated that £8 had been paid into Court. Mr Nalder contended that no notice could be taken of it, as notice had not been given of the same in accordance Vsith clause 44 of the Resident Magistrates Act. Plaintiff being sworn, stated that Mr Suiickell had asked him to,repair his diay for him in January last; that he had said he wanted a, first-clasa job made of it, and would not be particular about the prico. The dray had been, made an entirely new one, with the exception of the

wheels and axles. The materials alone had cost him £4, and he had spent 18 days over the work, knocking the old one to pieces and building the new one. The average wages in Dunediu in the trade were 15s to 16s per diem, whereas he had only charged 7s. Hβ had delivered the dray up on Feb. 28, and had told defendant how much he had charged. Defendant had at the time said that he thought it a stiflish price, but that he would come up to his (plaintiff's) house on the follow, ing Saturday evening with some money. lie liarl heard o£ no complaint.made about the dray until a fortnight ago, when he had asked for payment; then Mr Sunckell made several complaints.

Mr George Checkley, called, stated that he thought the prico charged excessive. He said he had been asked to examine the dray a week ng«, and had considered part of the A'ork defective.

The Bench gave judgment for plaintiff, for amount cl.'iimed, and costs.

E. Chnppe 1 v S. Fyfe. Claim £9.— This amount was for the balance duo for the purchase of three cows. Defendant objected to paying the amount, on the ground that the cows when sold to him had been guaranteed to calve in May and June, and they had not calved yet. Plaintiff denied having guaranteed their calving at that time ; he had only said they would likely do so.

The Bench reserved judgment.