Feiding R.M. Court.

Feilding Star, Volume XIV, Issue 35, 8 September 1892, Page 2

Feiding R.M. Court.

This Day. (Before Mr Brabant, R.M.) R. Hull, Sheep Inspector, charged A. Hight with offering sheep for sale in Messrs Jackson and Co.'s auction, yards wbich were infected with lice. Defendant was fined £1 and costs of Court. J. Wilson was also charged with a similar offence and was also fined £1 with cost of Court, 7s. J. C. Morey and Co. v J. S. Fowler ; claim, 16s 6d. Mr Prior for the plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed and costs 13s. Same v F. Klink ; claim 15s 3d. Mr Prior for the plaintiff. Judgnaent for the plaintiff for amount claimed and costs lis. C. Matthews v R. Drury; claim 15s. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed and costs 6s. Same v Ruera teNuku ; claim £4 2s 9d. Judgment for the amount claimed and costs 10s. J. Wilson v J Hoskins ; claim £4. Mr Prior for the plaintiff. Judgment for the plaintiff for amount claimed and costs of Court 6s. J. C. Morey v A. Belk. Judgment summons £8 2s 2d. Mr Prior for the plaintiff. Judgment for the amount claimed to be paid forthwith, or in default of payment the defendant to be imprisoned for 9 days iu Wanganui gaol. W. G. Haybittle v J. H. Lucre ; claim £8. Mr Sandilands for the plaintiff Defendant oflered to pay £2 down, and the balance by instalments of £2 a month Order made in conformity with the defendant's offer. J. C. Morey v W. Spooner ; claim £2 Os lOd. Mr Prior for the plaintiff. Defendant disputed this claim on the grounds that the goods in question were supplied to a Mrs Crook, who formerly acted as housekeeper to the plaintiff. This case was adjourned for a fortnight in order to allow Mrs Crook's evidence to be given as to the transaction. Adolphus Goldfinch v J. A. Neilson ; claim £9 2s 6d. Mr Sandilands for the plaintiff, and Mr Prior for the defendant. Plaintiff's counsel applied for an adjournment, to allow the evidence ot an important witness to be given. His Worship granted the application, and the case was postponed till this day fortnight. Isabella Richards v G. Ross ; claim £4 Mr Richmond for the defendant. This claim consisted of £3, for money lent to enable the defendant to buy a horse, and £1 an amount owing by plaintiff's son to the defendant, and the latter requested that the debt might be transferee! from the plaintiffs son to himself. The plaintiff and her son George gave evidence as to the lending of the money for the purpose of purchasing the horse. The defendant stated that the money was lent to purchase a horse from plaintiffs son, which the latter warranted sound, but the defendant found tbe horse was not safe to ride as it stumbles. Mr Richmond submitted that the evidence tended to show that the money was lent by the plaintiff to her son, and not to Ross. His Worship in delivering judgment, said it was immaterial to whom the money was really handed, as the arrangement for the money to be borrowed was understood. Judgment for the plaintiff for the sum claimed with costs of Court 6s. The Court then adjourned.