Feilding R.M. Court.

Feilding Star, Volume III, Issue 102, 10 May 1883, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court.

_ . 9 (Before ii. Ward, Esq.. R.M.) Wednesday, May 9. laeelklmsm. William Price and William Bellve, two little hoys, were charged with discharging certain missiles to the danger of property. Both boys pleaded guilty to the indictment. Constable Price brought the charge, and the first named defendant was his own son, whom he said he had already given a good thrashing, which having undergone he was fined Is. Bellve was fined the same, with a recommendation that his father also give him a flogging, the constable to instruct him to that effect. LICENSING ACT. Samuel v H. and L. Stewart. Mr Prior appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hawkins for the defendants. This was a charge of breach of the Licensing Act, on the 28th of April, by lefusing to leave the Endymion Hotel, Awahuri, when requested to do so by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's solicitor was permitted to add lo the indictment the words " being quarrelsome and disorderly," his Worship having pointed out that the mere fact of refusal did not constitute an offence under tho Act. Both defendants pleaded not guilty. M. K. Samuel deposed : On the evening of the 28th of April the two defendants and a Maori named M ane were at my hotel kicking up a disturbance ; tliey wanted to fight, and I refused to allow them, and requested them to leave ; they said they would after they had had some more drinks, which were served them, but they still refused to go, and persisted in staying when closing time came ; they said they would stay all night ; they did, however retire at last. His Worship held that the charge had not been properly made out, and dismissed the case with costs for the defendants civil cases. Rowley v Hansen. Judgment summons for £3 3s. No appearance of defendant. Amount to be paid forthwith or in default three days' imprisonment. J. Laing v J. P. Nixon. — Claim for £2 14s for horse hire, and part payment for horse. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff and costs. Dr Johnston v T. Barker. — Claim for £15 3s for professional attendance. Mr Prior for plaintiff. Defendant held that the charges were excessive, as the plaintiff had only made 11 attendances; he he also said there was a contra account. Plaintiff said he had only made the usual charges, and there was no account against him from the defendant. The account had been standing for four years. Judgment for plaintiff and costs. Same v C. Hodges. —Claim for £8 7s for professional attendance. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff and costs. Trustees in the bankruptcy estate of M. Keen v A. R. T. Haultain— Claim ! for £25 15s. Mr Prior appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hankins for the defendant.. This was a claim for alleged damages suffered to certain goods His Worship after looking carefully over the Debtors and Creditors' Act, ruled that the Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the case, which was therefore dismissed with costs for defendant. Emigrant, and Colonists' Aid Corporation v W. Fisher.- Claim for £27 Is 8d for rent, &c. Mr Hankins for plaintiffs | and Mr Hawkins for defendant. His, Worship held that there was nc case i before the Court, and it was therefore not proceeded with. ' ' The Court then adjourned. 1