Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CROMWELL.

Thursday, January 4. (Before Vincent Pyk*, Ktq., R.M. t and James Taylor, Ei<i; <!■?•) Police v. Maxwell ; Sams v, Wilson (two I cases) ; Same v. Johnston. In these cases there i was no appearance of tiie defendants, ami the I bail, '2os. each, was forfeited. Police v M 'Kay ; Same v. Edwards. —Charge of committing a breach of the peace. M'Kay pleaded guilty ; Edwards not guilty. From the evidence of Sergeant Uassels, it appeared that upon the 2i3th December he saw both the defendants fighting at the Lowburn, on the occasion of soma sports there. One of the defendants was knocked down by the other. He asked them ! for their names, but fchev refused to give thein. I lie threatened to take them both to the lock-up j j if they persisted in their refusal ; but ultimately lie got the information he required from a by- | stander. Edwards—who appeared to be subject to fits I of great excitement, one of which was then upon I him,—mado a statement to the e'feet that at the j time spoken of he had just been buying some nuts for a little girl, an I was in the act of renI (lering glad the heart of that little girl by transferring the nuts toher, —when some one, without giving him any notice of his intend on, struck him and knocked him 'lowa, tie imnediately got up. and " pitched into" tiic man tint struck him, with all his might, as any otlur mm would hive done who was a man at all. He considered himself quite justified in what he ha I done. The Bench did not agree with him. and told him that a man's proper re nedy when struck was to apply | to tho law for redress. iJefoudauts were both bound over to keep the I peace ; and ordore 1 topiy the cos's, 6* 0 I each. The same defendants were charged with using | abusive language to Sergeant C issels. They j I were ordered to pay the costs, and dismissed j with n caution. Saul v. Bolton.— Mr Allanhy for defendant. ; This was a mining contract, and the Magistrate ordered a summons to issue in the warden's Court, without payment of m ire foe*. Scott v. Gay and Smith.— Claim f>r rent and goods. Mr Allanby for plaintiif. No appearI ance of either defendants. Smith bad not been ! | served with a summons, so judgment wis given against Gay only for £l7. and i'l U>3 costs. Barnes v. Nicholas.—ln this case, the plaintiif applie I. fir an aljounuimt, as his solictor (Mr I Wilson) was not able to atten I the (Jour:,, owing ! to his absence at Dimodin, Mr Br mgh, for the | defendant, agreed to an adj mmmmt up m cm- j dition that the plaintiff paid 21s cists. The I plaintiff, however, refusing to do this, the case: I proceeded. It appeared fnm the evidence that Mr Nicho- ! 1 las had requested Mrs Barnes (the wife of the I 1 plaintiif) t > purchase certain furniture fr >m Dim- j jedin for him. Sludid so; and as soon as the ; furniture was delivered at her house she sent her son to the defendant to in for n him of its arrival. I The son delivered his tuessare, an I shortly after-1 i w ir-d.s a p trtnor of the defendant removed the furniture on behalf of the defendant. Mr Brough, i:i oxaminatim of the olaintiif, I j endeavoured to prove that there had been s.mi; matrimonial designs between defendant an I a | daughter of the phintiff ; tint the designs had I ; not been ended out. —and hence this action. I , The plaintiff, hj iwever, state I that he knew nothing about that matter; the defendant had' | been constantly at his house, but he did not • know what ho c ime for; he was always welcome. ! The p'aintilf a lmitte i that all the money for the i I goods was not paid. Mr Bnugh moved for a nonsuit, upon the , ground that, as plaintiff's wife had only acted as ! agent for Nicholas, and the in mey had not been paid, there was nothing to prevent the vendor! lof the furniture from forcing th; defendant to pay the money to him, if the plain'ill' did not pay. The B.mch overruled the point, and, there being no evidence for the defeice, gave judgj meat for Cio los, the full amount claimed, with : costs.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CROMARG18720109.2.20

Bibliographic details

Cromwell Argus, Volume III, Issue 113, 9 January 1872, Page 6

Word Count
742

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CROMWELL. Cromwell Argus, Volume III, Issue 113, 9 January 1872, Page 6

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CROMWELL. Cromwell Argus, Volume III, Issue 113, 9 January 1872, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert