AWIPAWA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3747, 19 July 1883, Page 3

AWIPAWA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

AVednesday, July 18

(Before Captain Preece, R.M.) RIOTOUS CONDUCT.

Richard Anderson, Charles Leach, and Kaurauria, a native, Avere charged by the police witli riotous conduct in the Ross-shire Anns, Te Auto, on tbc evening of July 11th. Mr Lee appeared for defendants, aud urged that the information was bud in law. It stated the riotous conduct to consist in ' rofusing to leave the hotel Avhen requested, whereas the refusal to leave constituted uo oil'eucc unless preceded by conduct disorderly in itself. His AVorship upheld the objection, and the information Avas amended. The evidence of Mr Limbrick, licensee of tho hotel, of Mrs Limbrick, and of Charles Hall, went to show that the defendants Anderson and Kurauria had been guilty of

very disorderly conduct. Upon the application of Mr Lee, Leach Avas discharged i, from custody, and gave evidence in favor of the two remaining defendants. His AVorship considered tho charge proved, and fined defendants £2 and costs t-ich, or 11 days' imprisonment.

DESTRUCTION OE PROPERTY. Tho defendant Anderson Avas then further charged with injuring property to the value of £3 7s, at the time and place

named in the preceding charge. Mr Lee, who appeared for defendant, admitted tho damaged, but claimed that the amount of damage done Avas exaggerated.

His AVorship assessed the damage at £2 and lined Anderson £1 and costs, or in default one month's imprisonment. The money was paid in this and the preceding- case. CIVIL CASES. O'Connor v. Tuhua (a native).—Claim of £19 10s Gd on dishonored promissory note. Mr Guy appeared for plaintiff, and produced tho latter's books its an evidence of consideration given for the note. Mr Lee, avlio defended, pointed out that the items included about 30s for brandy, and this, under tho Tippling Act, rendered the Avhole consideration void. His Worshipconetirred, and gave judgment for defendant, Avith costs; judgment not to bar plaintiff from i suing for goods delivered less the brandy. Livingstone v. Gillanders. —Claim of £8, value of a dog purchased by defendant. Mr Lee appeared for Gillanders, and denied the purchase, the dog being taken on trial and afterwards returned. Defendant avus ordered to pay £2 and costs, and to deliver * up the dog to plaintiff. MirbaJi v. Muddison.—Claim of £3 17s on a previous judgment of the Court. Plaintiff avus ordered to pay the amount in instalments of 5s Aveekly, or go to prison for seven days.

Maddison v. Eraser.—Claim of £6 2s Od, for hire of billiard table and money lent for same. The part of tbo claim for money borroAVcd aviis struck out us irrecoverable, being for purposes of gambling, and the --•"point as to whether a debt incurred for hire of a billiard tabic could be sued for aviis reserved till next Court day. This concluded the business.