Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume VI, Issue 7, 26 June 1884, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court

Wednesday, June 25th. (Before It. Ward, Esq., R.M.) „ CRIMINAL. Police v. James Laing-r-Defendant was charged on the information of Constable < iJlespie with being drunk and di>order!y !in Fetlding on the 19th i«Nrtant. Defendant pleaded guilty, and cxjiress.d sorrow for his conduct. "Fined 20s and costs. ■ - James Laing was farther ehargetT with an assault upon James Redmond at Feijd. ing on the .-ame date. He pleaded guilty to the charge, and said he was projpj^ed by complainant. ' . James Redmond deposed tbat dcfendant and himself were together; t^e latter was quarelsome and he tried to pacify him ; did'nt ( thiak he provoked him ; defendant struck him in the face. By complainant i. Did not offer to fight him, and did not call him a curf. Defendant again admitted having struck complainant. Fined 20s and costs, in default 4 days in prison. „-.;:.. The fines were paid. • •-■•'■ • CIVIL CASES •'>'"■ ■ ;ii Property Tax Commissioner v R. Fearon.— Claim ) £2 3s lOd, = Plaintiff^!* represented by Mr Steveus, postmaster ; judgmeut for plaimtiff ;md costs. Gaseoigne v Kenny. — Claim £3 11s 4d foe meat' supplied. Mr- Fribr foi plaintiff. No nppeAranpe .of defendant; judgment ,for plaintiff and #o»tii^ E J. Cottrell vO. Hodges-Claim £4 12^ Mr otaite for plaintiff. Defendant admitted the claim, and offered I ' to pay it in r. month. Mr. Stuite declined to agreo to this ; judgment for plaintiff and costs. Siiiue v C. Gray .—Claim £6 M r Staite for plaintiff. Defendant disputed a portion of the claim on the ground that he had paid some of it, for which he hold receipts, while certain payments had not been credited. Some receipts, were produced, which plaintiff admitted, but said the error.3 had never been ,po.ii)ted.out|o him ; judgment for £4 7s 3d an^ costs. H. Hughes v Tvn-a Hoeta^-^laim £2 bring balance, on dishonored, promissory mote. Mr Prior for .plaijijiffi "No appearance of of defendant.. : Plaiatiff waß examined, and judgment was entered for the amount and costs. '- - : ' - 1 James Sennet v Ev Morph^.^-Claim £14. Mr Hawkins for plaintiff; Defendant appeared, •and complniried~ of not bavin? been furnished with a proper account ; judgment ;;■ f o£ . plaintiff; . and' costs. I E. Cottrelf V James JLaing — Claim £2 ;9s. M r. Staite for plniotiff v .-Nt> appeaN\ ance of defendant ; Judgment for amount; and costs. . r ; H . Bennett v Kooro Renao— Claim on judgment summons for £18 9*. Mr Prior for plaintiff. After an examination (iti .Maori) of the defendant bj His' Worship nn order was^giten for tlie amount to be uaid in a fortnight, in default 14 days' jniprisoument. I McDuff v Belk— Claim £9 Is 4d. Mr Sandilands for defendant. This .was- an- applicati'ob, adjonrhfed' from last court day,, to ,giye evidence on k case to, be heard in,Waßgaimi. i The witnesses examined wore L. Rees, coachbuilder, and Thoma* Gordon, blncksinith, both of Feilding. The defendant also, gave, evidence, and. his coßts,.arid' tbpse pf^f the other two witnesses, were fixed. -• - W. Bell v H. Johns.— Claim £19 18s. No appearance of defendant; judgment for plaintiff and costs. Snme t v J. W. Jones^-Claim; L 8 B*3#. No appearance gf defendant. • tVij*stage it occurred to the- court that the plaint notes m these to cases had ndt been signed by the plaintiff.' His Wor- ; - : ship on referring to' an order in Council published in the Gazette, said he had no~ alternative but to strike both' these. c ases j ' out. The costß, howexcr, } ' would , t01d,, . ( . good, and the cases ntiglit d§ heard "at the, ", next sitting of the court. A number of cases having, been settle out of court, it now adjourntdk.! ..i'.-.ri^ ■•.!