Feilding S.M. Court,

Feilding Star, Volume XVI, Issue 114, 8 November 1894, Page 2

Feilding S.M. Court,

THIS* DAY. Before Mr Brabant, S.M. J. Gould v. E. J. Doak ; claim £10 4h 6d. Mr Sandilauds for plaintiff. The amount was paid, after the summons had becnisscd, without costs. Judgment for costs <30s and solicitor's fee 15s b'd. J. Wilson v. D. McKcllar ; claim i-8 lGs Od. Mr Richmond for plaiutiff. Judgmeut for amouut claimed with costs 16s, solicitor's feo 10a 6d. J. Notmau, D.O.A. iv the estate of H. Hickford v. F. McKeau : claim .£8 10s 2d. Mr Sandilauds for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs £2 0s solicitor's fee 15s 6d. Colonists Land and Loan Corporation v. J. Trainor (wife of John Trainor) ; claim £5 12s 6d. An order was made that possession of teuemeut be given up within a fortnight. Mr Reade appeared for plaintiff Company and did not ask for judgment for claim. J. Ransou and Son v. Tom Ewart ; claim .£l4 Is sd. Mr Rcade for plaintiffs. Judgment for amount claimed with costs lus, solicitor's fee 15s 6d. T. Moffatt v. J. Larson ; claim £16 5s Od. Mr Reado for plaintiff. Judgment by consent for amouut claimed with costs 15s, solicitor's fee 10s 6d. An order was made that tho amount be paid by instalments, at tho rate of £'d a month, tho first to be paid on the 15th iust. A. R. Allan v. J. A. Belk : a judgment summons claim £1 2s 2d. Mr Reado for plaintiff. Defendant, in examination, statod that he had no property and only lived on jobbing work. No order was made. Rapley v. Rapley. Mr Rcade for plaintiff. This was a wife's application against her husband, Win. Rapley, who had failed to comply with an order of the court to maintain his family. Mr Reade for plaiutiff, asked tfiat a warrant be issued for Mr Rapley's arrest, stating that he did not think a distress warrant of any use as ho (defer d mt) bad nothing. His Worship did. not think it of any nso bringing accused hero, and sentenced him to 0 weeks' in "Wnngauui gaol with hord labour, or in the e\ent of 1h? money claimed being paid lie bo disinlss< d. W. Nolan v. J. Rausonand Son ; claim £1 8s Id. Mr Richmond for plaintiff and Mr Reado fpr defendant. A set off amouutiug to £\l Is scl was put iv. Mr Richmond objected to this under the Truck Act, his objection being upheld by His Worship. Win Nolan deposed : Was engaged by Mr Run son on 24th March last at the rate of 25s a weok and found ; gavo M*' Rauson a week's notice on October 12th and next morning witness fouud another man in bis place. « Cross-examined : Gave Ranson a week's notice on the Friday night witness' intention to leave ; ou the Saturday morning found a man iv his place ; was not told by defendant tuat he was not competent to do the work required. Re-examiued : Was offered a choquo for £2 4s but would not take it as it was not the full amount. By the Bench ; It was understood when engaged that there was to be a week's notice on either side when wit- i ness was at leave. David Younger also gave evidence Mr Reade said the defence was that plaintiff came home intoxicated and was also insubordinate, in consequence of which defendant put on another man iv his place. Andrew Cavauagh doposcd : He was a baker by trade ; was instructed by Mr Ransou to work in the bake houso as plaintiff was incapable ; when plaintiff went to tho bakehouse ou the morning of October lilth witness told him that he (witness) was going to see tho batch i through, in reply to a question if he was working tLere. Cross-examined by Mr Richmoud. J. W. RanHou deposed to engaging plaiutiff at fchp yate of 2qs a wepk ; there was uo arrangement as to giving a week's notice in case of plaintiff leaving ; plaiutiff, who was not in a lit state to work, gave witness a week's notice ; plaintiff never disputed the contra account for goods supplied ; if the plaintiff had gone on with his work would have been willing to allow him to go on. The claim for 25s in lieu of a week's notice, and one day's work claimed for were abandoned. Iv the contra account £2 5s was agreed to by the parties, £2 J6s 6d was previously paid into court with oosts £1 as. Judgment for plaintiff for £1 2s 5d boyoud tho amouut paid iuto court and costs 6s. The case of Waugh v. Waugh, for maintenance was dismissed, neither of the parties putting in an appearance. Flowers v. D. Henderson ; claim £6, for monies owing. The case was withdrawn. The Court then adjourned.