Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume VII, Issue 84, 24 December 1885, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court

Wednesday, Decbmbeb 23, 1885. (Before R. Ward, Esq., R.M., and J. C. Thompson, Esq., J.P.) Louisa Belfit v Bobertßelfit.— Claim £5 15s. This was a charge against defendantforfailing to obey an order of the court to contribute towards support of his wife and family. The defend' ant pleaded guilty and eaid he would pay into court the money directly ike ;■"' got it- Case adjourned till nezt court day- ' *') ' "* ' ' • *U, Police t Fanthorro.-r-No appearance of defendant. This was a case where defendant was chargod .witi^ driving two horses ever the -fail— ay line when the* traia was approacdnnf^ Constable Meehan proved the offence. Fined 10s and costs 7». Borough Coun jit ▼ T. Gordon.— Claim £3 lis 7d. Mr G. (J. Hill, Town Clerk, -proved the claim. Same v R. W. Morphy. — Claim 15s lOd. Same v W. Roesitter.--Claim 21s 4d. In each ease the verdict was for plaintiff and costs. M. Keen v W. Cook.— Claim £1 5s 6d. Verdict for pfeintif! and costs. W. Q. Haybittle v W. Whisker.--Claim £4 13s 9d. Verdict for plaintiff and costs 6s, Prior and Sandilands v W. Rapley. — Claim £7 14s 6d oa judgment summons. A letter was read from tha defendant offering to pay 80s per month. Terms accepted by plaintiffs and judgment given accordingly. In default 7 days imprisonment ia Wan* ganui gaol. i, „■ . C. Roe v John Maysm^-^flaim £25 4s. Defendant sent a communication stating that he was Unable to come to the court from want ot means. Case adjourned till next court day. Hannett v Clark.— Claim -3 10s. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. . Defendant conducted his own case. This waa a claim for breach of agreement ra service of a maiw by tiie lu>rse 'Diomedes. A. Hannett deposed that he Was the owner of the entire horse Diomedes ; on September 26th saw defendant in his house and arranged with him for the service of a mare; afterwards defendant refused to complete hia contract. Cross-examined : Mrs Clark approved of the horse. Re-examined: George C^Vs name was entered in plaintuTs memorandum book. George Clark deposed that he was a carter living in Denbigh street ; had made no arrangement: with Hannett on his own behalf, but said if his son, who owned Dotty, the mare, . approved, he had no objections; his son was earning his own wages ; rode the mare several times ; whatever riding he had to do, did it on the mare ; his son Harry will be 21 years of age in February next. Mrs Clarke, wife of defendant deposed that she knew Mr Hannett ; saw him from her verandah ; be asked her to look at the horse ; her husband did not come in and ask her to look at the horse. Cross-examined : Saw the .horse •* Mr Clark came out when he heard them talking; her husband did not call her out ; if he had it would have been an improper thing to do. Henry Clark:, son of defendant, deposed that he wonld be 21 in February; tiie mare Dolly is his; did not authorise his father to j*^ her to Mr Hannott's horse. Cross-examined ; The mare had net been put to a horse before ; she was tried with Papapa last year at Major Marshall's; she was tried once; have . had the mare ever since aha was a foal; made an exchange with Tom Foster **. his father has only that riding horse, (laughter); his father did npt . tell him that Hannett oould put lus hari j to the mare if witness approved ; was not positive on this point; the mare had since boon served hy Southern Chief. Counsel for the plaintiff addressed the court. The court commented on the conflictevidence of tha two principal witness*. Plaintiff was nonsuited, no coots wera allowed. The court then adjourned until two o'clock. The oourt resumed at 2 p.m. J. Gray ▼ C. L. Aaderson.--Claim £13 8s 1 Id. Both parties are resident in Sandon. Mr Prior appeared for tha plaintiff, and Mr Esam for defendant. Mr Esam said that he would plead a set off. Ha stated the facts of tha ease. Defendant had a -judgment summons against plaintiff of £79 2a 8d payable ly instalments of £l pea week, of which £8 had* been paid and claimed that the sum mentioned £1$ 3s lid should be detained by him (Anderson; as' part payment of tha soma. 'a Tha "RM. said this was a vary important case especially to people in business. None of the facts of tha case wera disputed. The verdict waa for* the defendant. The amount to ba % set off against thia original judgment SUinmettS. V ■■■■;-. -i >. y. Tha court than adjourned. ' J£