RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1975, 3 September 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This i'ay. (Before A, 0, Strode, Esq., R. M.) DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. J. L. Smith, for being drunk, was fined 20s, or 4S hours’ imprisonment.—Charles Wiley and John Williams, on a similar charge, were each fined 20s, or 24 hours’ imprisonment. Civil Cases. Roche v. Samuel Clouds.—Mr Ward for the defendant. The defendant had paid L 5 into Court, which the plaintiff agreed to accept as a settlement of his claim. Judgment accordingly. l.itfcle v. Ashmore.—The plaintiff, who is a miller, claimed L2 Hs, for winnowing, cleaning, grinding, and dressing, 36 bushels of wheat. The defendant pleaded not indebted except for grinding and dressing. The plaintiff presented a document purporting to be an order from the defendant, who said he could not write, excepting so far as to sign his name. He was directed by the Magistrate to write his name, which he did. He did not think the writing was that of his wife, who could write. His Worship had no doubt that the statement made by the defendant with respect to the writing was untrue, as the signature to the document and that written at the table were exactly similar. Judgment for plaintiff for the amount, with c ists. Little v. Thomas Shand, and Little v. Grant. The summonses having been informally served the cases were not proceeded with. Watchen v. Mee.—\ claim for L 5 5s 9d for wages and and board .as cook and for a week’s wages and board in lieu of notic % the p'aintiff having been summarily dismissed. Tbe defendant paid L 3 into Court. In defence he said the p’aintiff was not a competent cook an 1 therefore he was discharged. His Worship thought this statement should be supported by evidence. In default, the presumption was, as be rem ined thirteen days in the service that he was equal to the work. Judgment for the plaintiff L4ss 9d with costs. JUDGMENT. His Worship gave judgment in the case of Gragg v. Hughes. Two nonsuit points had been raised by Mr Wilson in this case, which was that of a claim for damage done to whiskey sent to Auckland. The particulars were fully reported in the Evening tHar at the time. On the second point, Mr Wilson held that the bonded form sent with the spirits, and returned specifying the altered strength on their arrival at Auckland, although bearing the signature of the Collector of Customs there, did not prove itself to be genuine, and therefore was inadmissible as evidence ; and as the case depended mainly upon the statements contained in that document, if it were inadmissible tbe plaintiff must be nonsuited. His Worship ruled that proof of its au henticity was necessary, and the plaintiff was therefore nonsuited.