RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3640, 13 March 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tnis Day,

(Before Captain Preece, R.M.) LUNACY.

James GrifEen, charged ■with luuacy, on remand, was committed to the Lunatic Asylum on the certificates of the medical examiners.

CIVIL CASES. Martin v. Tomoana.—Claim £3 2s 6d. Mr Lee appeared for the defendant, and Mr Lascelles for the plaintiff.—Mr Lee applied for an adjournment to enable him to produce two witnesses, who were absent at the reception to Tawhiao at Omalui.—Mr Lascelles objected to any adjournment. The grounds stated were insufficient. It was not to be expected that a plaintiff should be required to lose a, whole day, and pay his solicitor as well, because the person sued and his witnesses desired to attend a feast. Mr Tomoana was a very hard customer to get money out of, and there was no reason why, if he had any defence to set xip in this case, he should not have been here with it to-day.—Mr Lee said he would proceed with the case and defend it, and if he could show sufficient cause he would afterwards apply for an adjournment so as to produce his witnesses.—The plaintiff having given evidence, and being crossexamined by Mr Lee, judgment was given for the amount claimed, with costs 11s, interpreter's fee 5s (for translating bill of particulars), expenses of plaintiff os, and counsel's fee £1 Is.

Skeltou v. John Miles.—Claim £2 oh 10d. Judgment by default for plaintiff for amount claimed, with costs 7s.

Barrows v. D. Smith.—Claim £12 10s, interest on mortgage deed. Judgment by default for plaintiff for amount claimed, with costs £'2 7s, and Counsel's fee £1 ls.>»Mr Lascelles for the plaintiff.

Macdonald v. Arthurson.—Claim £21- for board, cash advanced, Sec. Mr Lascelles appeared for the defendant. Thie case was adjourned last week in order that amended particulars might be supplied.—Mr Lasoelles said that, as the items in the first bill and those in the second bill differed so widely, he would, with permission of the Court plead no indebtedness. Of course it would not be denied that the defendant was liable for something. The plaintiff was then sworn, and stated his case.—Mr Lascelles said he would acknowledge £3 ' charged for a dog; he objected to drink charged for in the account, also to an item of liOs alleged to have been paid by plaintiff on defendant's behalf. Defendant would admit £12 charged for a horse,- saddlo, and bridle. —The plaintiff, being cross-examined by Mr Lascelles as , to items for drink charged in tho account as board, admitted that the ledger was posted up at the end of tlio month from the counter book, whereupon Mr Lascelles at once objected to the ledger being produced in evidence. Mr Lascelles concluded by giving a list of the items his client would admit, also the length of time the defendant boarded with plaintiff, and called the defendant as a witness, who gave evidence in support of the statements advanced.—Judgment was ultimately given in favor of the plaintiff for £15 16s 6d and costs, the Court remarking that the plaintiff's books were in a very unsatisfactory condition.

Monteith and Co. v. Didwiddie. —Claim .•67 3s. Judgment by default for plaintiff for amount claimed with costs.

Denton v. Yon Mirbach.—Claim £11 11s. Mr Leo for the plaintiff, and Mr Lascelles for the defendant. This was a claim for eleven professional visits at .£1 Is each on patients of the defendant's at Makatoku, at the request of the defendant. —Dr. Denton, being examined said he had letter [produced] from Dr. Mirbach on tho 31st of December last requesting him to attend on the family of a man named O'Leary at Makatoku. There were threo children ill of diptheria. Witness paid eleven visits altogether. He oilered to accept payment from Dr. Mirbach (being a professional brother) at the rato of 7s Gd a visit, but the latter refused to give him more than £1 Is, for which ho received a cheque. That cheque witness had made no use of. He understood that subsequently £2 2s had been offered in settlement through, his solicitor.—By Mr Lascelles: I keep no attendance book. There ■ wore four sick children in O'Leary , s house after the 31st December last. lam sure of that. I never had any letter from Dr. Mirbach requesting me to desist from attending the children. I prescribed medicine for the children on several occasions—a tonic. It was Dr. Mirbach himself who suggested that £1 Is for each visit was a fair charge. The letter I received from Dr. Mirbach requested me to attend on O'Leary'sfamily "to-day and to-morrow and as long as required."—Mr Lascelles submitted that the charge mat]/.; by Dr. Denton was excessive, besidea which the plaintiff had paid more visits / than was required.—Dr. Mirbach, being examined, said O'Leary came down to him on Saturday, 30th December, and asked witness to go up to Makatoku. Witness said he could not go, when O'Leary pressed him, and out "of pity for tho man he wrote a letter to Dr Denton at O'Leary's request asking him to attend the children, and gave O'Leary some medicine at the same time. On the 2nd January he received information, while attending the Kaikora races, in consequence of which ho wrote a letter to Dr* Denton—Mr Lee objected to this evidence. There was no order ifco produce the letter in question, and Dr Denton denied having received it.—Examination continued:. Witness never received any answer to the request sent to Dr Denton to attend O'Leary's children. A fair charge per visit, includingmedicine, would be 7s 6d. That was witness's usual charge to poor persons. Counsel having addressed the Court, His Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff for £4 2s Gd, with costs 19s, counsel's fee £1 1?, and expenses of Dr. Denton's attendance £1 Is.

The Court was then adjourned to 2 p.ni,