Feilding R.M.Court

Feilding Star, Volume VI, Issue 26, 14 August 1884, Page 2

Feilding R.M.Court

WEDNEBPAY, AIXOUST 13TH, 1884.

(Before R. Ward, Esq., 8.M.) " ; CRIMINAL. Carles: Hodges, of Feilding, was 1 charged, on the information of Henry Northover, of Taonui,.ithat he did, oa the 22nd^of July last, at Feilding, unlawfully assault -complainant by striking him on the face with his fist. _Pejendjtn_t djd J nj& r appe.ar.. .,,.,., , Complainant deposed to the assault, which he said was without reason or provocation of any kind. Constable Gillespie. was called, as a witness: Saw defendant strike complainant three severe blows in the face ; he could see no reason,, and there was no provocation ? on th# J|*art^^ : of the latter. ; . i Fined £5 ' afid costs 7s, or one month's imprisonment. f i Mrs Cdrkery Was charged;^ on the information of Ellen Looney, with using indecent language 'towards her at Feilding on the 28rd of July laßt, such language being within hearing of persons passing in a public street. I Mr Staite appeared for complainant ' and Mr Prior for defendant. ■i - : Defendant, on hearing the plaint read, pleaded. not guilty of using the words quoted therein. Complainant deposed that she was a married woman and defendant was a neighbor of hers [At this stage all women were' ordered out of 'the court, and witness related the circumstances of the case, repeating the substance of the words used by defendant] . Witness' cross-examination brought out nothing very material. > Sarah Looney, daughter of last witness, corroborated her evidence. Cross-examined : Defendant had her head in the house and no one could hear what she said. , His Worship here said he tb.ongb.fc the information ought to be amended. There was no evidence ,of indecent language, but it might be amended to a charge of abusive language. Amended accordingly. „ .... I "" Mrs ' Corkery, the defendant, tbea stated her case, which was to the effect that complainant was in a pas* < sion, and was abusive to witness. She positively denied having used either indecent or abusive language towards complainant. Mrs Whittaker, a neighbor of the parties, deposed as to being present on the occasion referred to, but did not hear defendant use any bad or abusive words. Mrs Freeland, another neighbor, was examined, but her evidence was unimportant. Defendant was fined 10s and costs 7s. CIVIL. D. R. Lewers v Geo. Grantham.— Claim £2 18s. Mr Prior for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant, who had sent a letter offering £I per month. Order made accordingly with costs. H. Penberthy v James Buchanan. Claim £2 4s. Mr Prior for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff and costs. Matthew Belk v L. A. Caldwell. Claim £,12;145, for, wages. ; Mr Prior for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff and costs.- ■■■' >■ : - •'< 6. Cook v ; Wm. WJaisker. — Claim £s,£sfe. Mr Prior for plaintiff and Jtfr Staite for defendant." This was a case adjourned from last court day. A notice of withdrawal had been filed, and the question was now of costs. Plaintiff" nonsuited* with costs and counsel^ fee aßl'ls. * - T ; ' ; R. Loudon v R. Palmer. — Claim £8 12s.' Defendant had sentTplaintifT£6 and judgment was given for, thebalarice and costs. W. E.Gkunberfain t 3t Mi Gdpp. Claim £21 14s 63. No appearance of defendant.'' Judgment for plaintiff and costs. ; ' D. H. Lewers v Ja& :Laing. — Claim £2 4s, for rent. > Mr: Prior ior plaintiff. No. appearance of defendant. . JudgI ment for plaintiff and costs. Plaintiffs application for-possession within one week was also granted, with counsel's fee. • : : - . i E. J. Cottrell v C. Hodges.— Judg* ment summons for £5 10s. Mr Staite for plaintiff. No< appearance of defendant, who had made a certain offer which plaintiff was prepared to accept. Amount ordered to be paid>at£3on the 11th September and the balance on the 11th October, or in default six days' imprisonment. > — ' ;.. ■....•:■> Same v C. Gray .^Judgment summons for £5 13s 3d. Mr Staite for I plaintiff. Defendant appeared in a weakly condition, and pleaded inability to pay on account of having been for a long time an invalid and not yet able to earn anything. Medical certifioates were produced, and the. case was adjourned. ; - - Same v T. Sexton!.- — Judgment summons for £4 IBs. Mr Staite for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. Amount ' ordered 'to be paid, or fivtf days' imprisonment. •'"*'•■' Wm. Whisker y X and C, Bull.— Claim; £21 i4g : Bit ,Mr ''Biaiie fer plaintiff and Mr Esam lor defendants. A set-off, .had. been /filed, of whithplaintiff admitted 16s 4d. ■ ..'.; ,1 ■ > •*" W^ Whisker, i butcher afcd farmer, of Feilding, deposed as to supplying defendants with , tallow, chaff,fan\d hay to the amount of claim'; the prices were as agreed, and the goods were delivered jto defendants' sawmil| on the authority of Charles Bull ; "had no personal dealings with James Bull in the matter; ha<l asked, .Charles But} to settle the case, but, he said ; there, was no need, as the.acpqiuxta between witness aVd^ame^. Rull Vab^nlj bj^ ( anced; 1 would swear .defenjdant&.were; indebted to hinvfor amount claimed*,' , less. the set,-off. ;: ■, .•--..., r .! ; , v , -, ;;a I: Cross-examined ;._l'he tallow was 'ordered by; Palmer, had also ordered some on his own account ; he had.ordered one lot, pf ;hay, Jbnfc > Qou^ir not, .say who ordered the. other,; th^rj^ had not [been ; dispute as^^. the.

HjfltSß^TS^BSl&f'ilpaSi. not had anjj intimation thafcrfurfe Sad been charged -for than^elivered ; the^wofd i\ error " -i& *6n& of Hthfe' accounts 'should have -b^a ." reb»t? f ", ; . > -no.l *t <»V!> ! --^. ; ' .jß*ex*mmech The* intention of the Lfebatfe-wWiwith a- rfev \ ?? '"gfcftfofe* * settlement. , , ,'\- .",'.,• •> „-^.»s f •■-•; '-r ' \ WmV T Whis«e!?, ! .'|.unr.,' deposed as to ■ hii :^ciiQ«rl«^fi^,qC the xndering and delit-r ering the goods ; they were ordered by .Palmeri who was in defendants' ehtjiloyj and were to beteharged to JT.indQ. JEtull ; knew nothing of a, claim of ; jameß. Bullagainstplaintiff for timber. : >;: .1 Witness, on being cros'siexamined, "ktte*"' nothing of the actual transactions *lktween plaintiffs and, defendants. .= John Cooper,, formerly -in! the employ erf plaintiff,; d oposed as to different lots of "hajrbeing sent to defendants at ranou3 timV«; : •■',."' ,V "7 ;...•"• . h tins closed the plaintiff's case. Mr Esain, rafter going iengthilyinto the cape.fpr the defence, called Charles Bull, who said he bad himself ordered none of 4he goods! nieirtioned. in the claim ;. told plaintiff that Palmer/ said tliey had not iad all, the- hay charged for^had offered .to. square accounts • whenever plaintiff wiihed."' •'■"■'■'■-■'• • ■ .'• '.''...■. CrossiexatnTned : Hkd never admittetl tUe correctnes'f of ..the. account, nor giFen a proiiiissory note^ for it ; wouldn't pay plaintiff because he owed an acconnt to J rme« Bull-; •' had : power of ; attorney to boHect'kccotrtits' for the latter. James ?ull, the other ;de£endant, wan examined; croSs-esanainedi • and ire-eram-ined at length," buf r "hisf evidence was of little public interest?. ; ' '' ... ~ TMs closed the' case for the* defence. ( After both counsel had' Addressed the court; Mis. Worship gaid'he was satisfied a« lo the justness ofthe claim, excepting «ne ton of hay. He had no evidence ot the set-off, and would give judgment for £15 18s 4d, with costs and counsel's fee. James BUll V VVm. WHisker.— Claim £23 47s iod. M r Esam for plaintiff ai;d MrStaite fe^d^fen^aa-., . . -' For the* defence the Statute of Limitation was pleaded,. an Jon this ground .Mr Esata claimexl^the examinaiipn^of jhe defendantjfo.^ the. plaintiff's case. Wm. Whisker, er»min«d accordingly, admitted 'certain -accounts' for timber supplied to him by plaintiff in 1877-8. ' By ifr^Staite.-. Dil owe the claim, but it had been 'balanced" by- bther-ac-count a, and he didn't owe it now. •Jairieii^Bul^lhe plaintiff, Was oxamined a* to a claim. for aTset off, b,ut denied owing defehdant r a single sixpen.se. This closed the casa for the plaintiff. Mr.Stiite claimed * nonsuit in accordance with the statute. - 3fr"Esam contended that the plea of limitation had been nullified by the claim having been; revived 3>yV the defendant's admissions. -i . - . Hii Worship 1 thdught 'the case ah important one, and Jie would like, f^r <sounset and himself to have opportunity* to consult authorities before giving a decision. .Judgment adj ourn^l tiU nexif court jis Jehsferi V Mariagh -^Claim £^ 5s: r Manngh v Jensen.— Claim £4. Mr Prior for Jtnsen and Mr- Esam for Managh. Both cases were' 'heard' together, being crosi claims relative to a horse and cow. The parties/ who reside at Halcombe, were each examined, when judgment was given for plaintiff- \U bbtn cases, with 1 COStS. . r ■ ■■• ' : ' ' . ; . F. Hint v J. B. Roots.— Claim £15 6s 2d for work done: Mr Prior for plaintiff and Mr Goodbehere fpr defendant f It appeared' tJKat part of the claim was for work performedi-^orj^he [defendant privately, and the balance for the firm of Boots and Co. Plaintiff and . .defendant bwngootn. examined at some length, H|is| Worslfip'^ave;.^"^™^ fyMi r antf fco'stis.'tTSe balance he considered bping chargeable to the firm after d^efendanihad ; C d! i. Lfwe^ra v Elizabeth OToole.— Jif^gm^n? summons for £4 < 8.5.9d ? . ;n llr ! Prior for pl^m^iffj *»AM?i [Hawkins for de>fgndanst.< It was contended that the defendant having married since contract-; in« the claim, an orde^ggjiinst her could i n nt hA my>^ wJtot t taa^ ■ c UUSDaQd ou fi afc to have been sued, Mr Hawkinjt^aptiflgi authority m support of this point. Case to stand over for«a9toiiptfB { fo allow of an arr/mgr^lUib^ing made. Jno. Konicles v Jnbrtlopkins. — Claim £15 18a lOd for work done. Mr Prior for plaintmKa'Mr^iieW flefen&nt. Pkintiff^deDpsed M .to forking for Aetkddihtk iyla#eeinen£ fof a wrtaii time ; charged 8s psrriay) and was paid certain amoun^pn.jyjeountr ; j <J j l g Cross - examined : JKrtness admitted having li«d ji«f o | n4anV* ihpMe,! «nd being provided by him with rood while John Pollock, at whose restaurant plaintiff had sfe^id-'priOrHtb JiiW working for -d#tead«nt, gave evidence as to his knowled^abf thi pkpii^allidUHe^iVeutoitances. , r . „ P>JEL Lewir^iaso. deposed «* tto what he knew ef thwcaw, wiji"RW*Hii«>Spitiioß ; ' at to what would fa^itewfcfr'taftiteen th«twopartiflß.i^>c'y ;<ht;-,-jU->tt •>>! D<>fenda«t^vaa.'tUew elrtlediiKutTdeined havingl anranjjeditaip*^ fp r lal«ttff^»'a Hay ; jfteoiideml 15d ■* weAi*Wt:4>oi>d' ( wbuld Itare been more AanUw «anlid:l -><-> + J ttdgment wiw-«rtefed-fer-defendant with costs aißt^unrser»fae£6L'i4i. A number of other—eases having been setfttedaMt'o&fcAtGS, it)6Bitftt.l3«)urHedll]' .. „ >i..\ mill in hi *iit k',nir.}<J>>