RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CROMWELL.

Cromwell Argus, Volume III, Issue 127, 16 April 1872, Page 6

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CROMWELL.

Thursday, April 11. (Before, E. 11. Carew, Esq., li.M.; and James Taylor, Esq., J.P.) ' j Raffling Furniture.—Henry Waeber was a charged on the information of the police with V unlawfully raffling certain articles of furniture ] at his premises in Cromwell.—The defendant pleaded guilty, but stated that he had seen raf- £ lies advertised in the newspapers, and he therefore thought he would not be breaking the law by holding one himself.—The Bench stated that a heavy line would not be inflicted, as the defen- ( dant was a foreigner and did not perhaps under- ' stand the language very well. Fined 205., and < lis. costs. Hoffmann v. Russell.—Claim, £l2 9s. 2d. for provisions, &c, supplied. Mr Wilson for J plaintiff, The defendant admitted items to the ' amount of £6 ss. 3d., and sought to put in a 1 set-off against the remainder. It appeared that 1 the set-otf had not been served upon the plaintiff c within the proper time, but this objection was { waived, and the case proceeded. Mr Wilson called the plaintiff and Jesse Geer, who deposed c to the money being due for the items mentioned j in the particulars. The defendant then gave evidence, and deposed that the plaintiff had been -. a partner with him in a quartz claim ; that the claim had not turned out well, and that a cer- J tain sum was due to him for wages by the plain- ' tiff, as he (the plaintiff) had not worked on the 1 claim himself. In reply to this, however, the t plaintiff stated that it was understood between them that he was not to be compelled to pay i anything until payable gold was struck, as he ( had put the defendant on to the claim. £3 Gs. ] 9d. of the set-off was admitted.—The Bench £ considered the probabilities were in favour of the defendant, and gave judgment against the plaintiff for 10d.—Mr Wilson gave notice of j appeal. Hoffmann i'. Montague.—This was a similar j claim, but Mr Wilson said it would be with- , drawn. The defendant applied for costs, which , the Bench declined to grant. ■ James Cowan and Wm. Shanly (as Trustees , of the Estate of John Halliday) v. Simon Ait- ( CHISON. — Owing to an irregularity in connection . with the issue of the summons, the Bench declined to hear the case, but stated that a new summons might be issued without payment of j: further fees. —Two other similar cases were dealt ' with in like manner. CoLCLOUGH v. HoRRIGAN.—In this case the bailiff who had seized property in possession of the defendant, but which had been claimed by William Shanly under a bill of sale, had issued an interpleader summons, and that summons now came on for hearing. Mr Allanby appeared for Mr Shanly, and put in a certificate by Dr Corse to the effect that bis client was very unwell and not able to appear. He therefore asked for the case to be adjourned till next Court-day. Mr Brough appeared for Mr Colclough. Some formal evidence was given by Mr Allanby, to the effect that a bill of sale (then produced) had j I been executed by Horrigan to Shanly, and that I a copy had been sent to Dunedin for registration ; that Shanly's books showed Horrigan to be indebted to Shanly, at the time of execution !of bill of sale, to the extent of nearly £2OO. The bill of sale was not given in order to defeat Colclough's judgment, but for the purpose of securing Shanly.—At this stage the case was adjourned till next Court-day for the attendance , of Mr Shanly. James Scott ?>. H. Waeber.—Claim for bread and meat supplied. The defendant did not deny , having received the goods, but stated that one : Harry Smith was indebted to him for a certain sum, and that Smith had informed him that he : (Smith) was in partnership with Scott: conse- ! quently he wished to set off one debt against i the other. The evidence for the defence was very vague, and the Bench gave judgment for j the amount claimed and costs.