RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.
Monday, December 6. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) J. D. Hutton v. W. Smaill.—L7 14s for board and lodging It was stated the debt was incurred three years ago, since which time defendant had been constantly earning L 3 a week. Order made for the payment of L2 every four weeks, failing which defendant to be imprisoned for thirty days. B. Britton v. Elizabeth Smith, LI 19s for maintenance of a boy at the Industrial >01100!. Defendant said fhe had four other children to maintain. Judgment for the amount and costs. Mr Britton said the authorities would give defendant time to pay, Margaret Brown v. Mary Ann Hyara (Beaumont), L 5, for maintenance of a child. Judgment for the amount, * Josei-h All wood v. James Muir, was a claim i • -a. mone y 9 received by defendant for
plaintiff a use. v.r Dennistou for plaintiff. Mr James Smith for defendant.—l'ho claim was made under peculiar circumstances, i n the 17th November, plaintiff, who is a horsedealer, entered into negotiations with the defendant, who is a cab-owner residing at Caversham, for the tale of a horse, which he took to C iveisham for a trial. The purchase having been agreed upon, Allwood went into Muir’s house, m the kitchen of which the sale was concluded—payment being made of the 18 agreed upon in seven one pound notes, a half K A ° t vercl ß n , and the balance in silver—for which Allwood, seated at the corner of the table, wrote a receipt. This money ho put into a canvas bag, which then contained sixty-one Ll notes. In taking out he larger sum, with winch he afterwards mixed the seven notes he received from Muir, some of these notes fell on to ms lap ; but he did not look to see if any had fallen on to the floor. When he got back to town here-counted his money and discovered a deficiency of Ll6. He immediately drove back to the house, and there saw the daughter of the latter, to whom he said, “Well, my dear, I droppe >. some money—notes—have you seen anything of them?” to which she I picked them up and gave them to taiber. Ho then said, Are you sure you gave them to your father ?” and she replied in the affirmative, “ i hen why did you uot give them to me ! ’ to which she made answer, “ Uh you were gone. ’ ’ihe mother then came in, and she said it was a receipt the girl had picked up ihe gul said the same; and the father added that although she was ten years old she could not ted the difference between a receipt and notes. The defendant and his daughter gave a flat contradiction to the whole of tne plaintiffs statements concerning thee onvorsations t hat took place in the house when he returned to it, after discovering hii loss. Plaintiff was nonsuited, with costs.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18751206.2.7
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Evening Star, Issue 3988, 6 December 1875, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
489RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Evening Star, Issue 3988, 6 December 1875, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.