Resident Magistrate's Court.

Feilding Star, Volume XVI, Issue 188, 8 February 1895, Page 2

Resident Magistrate's Court.

This day. Before Messrs Bull and H. L. Sherwill, J P's ) Kiwitcn County Council v. Prisoilla ?rabbe ; claim £1 4s 3d for rates. Mr Jicbmond appeared for the plaintiff /ouncil. Judgment for the amount taimed with coats 275. G. C. Hill, clerk FeiJding Borough louncil v. Alfred Hannett ; claim £1 los or rates. Judgment for amount claimed vith costs 59. E. F. Crawford v. Wellsman ; claim £9 8s lOd. Mr Reade for plaintiff, and Mr Sandilands for defendant. Case adourned to 12th instant on application of plaintiff's solicitor, solicitor's fee of 21a 3eing allowed to defendant L. E Reade v- F. Wellsman ; claim £1. Mr Richmond for plaintiff and Mr Sandilands for defendant. This was a jlaiin on an 1.0. U. L. E Reade deposed : About last Oc tober Weilsman and a man named S*nson went to his office, and the former !jave the latter an 1.0 U. ; witness then cashed the 1.0.U , which defendant pro mised to pay. Cross-examined: The 1.0. U. was tranfferred to witness by Sanson. R. Parr deposed: Defendant told witness he owed plaintiff £1. Mr Sandilands submitted the case should be nonsuited as there was no assignment of the I O.U from Sanson, tc whom it was given by defendant. A cheque or promissory note were the only documents which could be passed from lutnd to bund by endorsement, and an 1.0. U. was only an evidence of debt beUveen the signer and the person to whom it was given. The defendant, on being duly sworn, admiued the debt to Sanson, but did not udmit owing pl-untiff am thing. To Mr Cjandilands : Have always refused to pay plaintiff the amount clfiimnd ; the 1.0.U was given in satisfaction of n claim for money placed on the totalizator Mr hichmond submitted the document was negotiable and plaintiff was entitled to cliiim on it. Judgment for plaintiff under the equity and good conscience clause, with costs 10s, E. E. LeProu v. W. Moore ; claim £5 19s Mr bandilands lor plaintiff and Mi Prior for defendant. Plaintiff deposed : Was employed by defendant on Mr Densham's property tc do nnderscrubbing ; was given an order by defendant for amount claimed ; on presentation of the order to Mr Densbaru he was told the work had not been completed ; had caused an order to be served on Mr Densliam under the "Workmen's Lien Act as the order was not satisfied To Mr Prior : The nnderscrubbing was let to a Mr Roger?, who engaged witness; a portion of tbe amount i-ued on was due by Roger-, from whom Moore tro'v ove the contract ; did not tell defendunt he (witness) would work on the job till it was completed. Frank Rogers deposed ; Took a contract from Mr Denshnm; employed plaintiff' at 25s a week and found : the job was not paying and witness gave it up, it being taken over by Moore, who then engaged witness to work on the job. W. Moore deposed : Engaged Rogers to do underscrubbing, but he gave it up a,H it did not pay ; witness then agreed to see that plaintiff and the other men were paid for the time they had worked under Roger?, provided they assisted witness to complete the work ; plaintiff only worked three days after Rogers gave up the contract; gave the order, on which the claim was made, after plaintiff left, by mistake. To the Bench : Could not give any other reason for giving the order than that he had given it by mistuke. Mr Prior submitted no consideration had been given for the order. Mr Sandilands, in replying, contended that under tho Workmen's Wages Lien Act no assignment of a contract could be made unless the wages of workmen were provided forJudt;ment for amount claimed with costs 22s and solicitor's fee 2%'s G- Stewart v. E. Barrett. Mr Reade for Mr Stewart. Mr Sandilands for Mr Barrett, applied for a re-hearing of the case, iv which judgment was given for plaintiff by default for the amount claimed, L 8 16s at a previous sitting of the Court. Mr Sandilands submitted his client, who lived at Pemberton. was unable to attend the Court on the day of hearing owing to ill health, and was entitled to a rehearing as he had a receipt for the amount alleged to be due. Mr Reade having replied. A re-hearing of the case was granted subject to defendant paying the amount of claim and costs into court. John Davis was charged that he did, on January 9th, 1895, strike Henry Axup on the head with his clenched fist. Mr Sandilauds appeared for complainant, Mr Axup. Henry Axup, W. Davis and E. Mills gave evidence of the assault. Accused pleaded that he had committed the assault while under the influence of drink. Accused was fined L 5, or in default one month's imprisonment in Wanganui gaol, with costs 11s, and solicitor's fee 21s. Half the fine was paid to cornplaiuaut. On the applipation gi the police, a prohibition order was issued against J. R. Davis, to take effect in Feildjng, Hair combe, Cheltenham, Birmingham, Pal* merston N-, Apiti, AwahuriandColyton. T>l,,. /"<«.,■..*■ +!,„„ «^1,'~, ,«.*,„,!