MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 352, 28 February 1902, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

(Before Mr W. A. Barton, S.M.)

UNDEFENDED CASES, Iv the following undefended cases yesterday judgment was given for the plaintiff with costs : William Miller (Mr L. Bees) v. Hugh Boyd, claim 5s and costs, A 1 ds 6d ; Angleson Edward Adams (Mr J. H. Lysnar) v. Taitemaranga, claim lls and costs, los. COOPEB V. ADAMS. The case of Arthur John Cooper v. jeorgo Herbert Adams was continued. The plaintiff claimed £oo (£lo of which had been paid) from defendant for darnages sustained by an assault alleged to ha\e been committed on July (Eh last. Mi Nolan appeared for plaintiff and Messrs DeLautour and Jones for defendant. The plaintiff being re-called stated he had his hand in his pocket when Adams struck him. He was in no way preparing for fight, and had his back to defendant when he received the mow- ft was the same assault for whien Adams had been fined in the Court. Counsel having addressed the Court, His Worship gave judgment. He said that the main question he was called upon to decide was whether plaintiff agreed with defendant to accept £ls ill settlement of the claim. Plaintiff saul he did not, whilst defendant said he did, but toe latter’s evidence was supported by Gault, who was a disinterested witness. He considered the plaintiff was bound by the agreement, but thought he would be justified in giving judgment for .£5 promised if defendant was longer recovering than expected. Judgment would therefore bo for £5, costs £'d 19s Od. In reply to defendant’s counsel, who wished leave to appeal with regard to the £5, His Worship intimated that leave would be granted. OTHEK CASES.

In the case of Angleson Edward Adams v. a Hative, claim £ll, tbe plaintiff was nonsuited, with costs .£1 Is. Mr Lysnar appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Jones for the defendant. A. E. Adams v. Wharepapa Tawhiao, claim iS 8s 6d. Mr Lysnar appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr R. N. Jones for the defendant. Judgment was given tor the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs.

John James Casssidy v. John Kempner, olaim £5, amount paid for a suit of clothes. In this case the plaintiff sought to recover the sum mentioned on account of the clothes being a misfit. It was alleged that the vest was too small and tho trousers 2.1 in too short. Hr Rees, who appeared for the defendant, said that his client had been instructed to make the trousers on the short side. Judgment was given for the amount claimed, with costs £2 3s, the suit of clothes to be returned to the defendant,