Untitled

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2148, 2 August 1907, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL. Thursday, August 1. Before Mr. W. A. Barton, B.M. Judgment by Default—Judgment was entered for tho plaintiff by default in the following cases. Lancelot Charles Allen v. Thomas Mahar, claim £7 19s, with costs 12s; Chas. Ferguson v. Bert Cusden, claim £3 10s, with costs ss; Thos. McCarthy v. Bert Cusden,. claim £4 ss, with costs ss; J. W. Wade and Sons v. Henry Goodloy, claim £3 Is, with cost-- 10s; Mary Jane Kirk v. Thos. Williams, claim £7 15s 2d, with costs £1 3s 6d.

Alleged Detention of Goods—ln the caso Wilkinson v. McKenzie, claim for tho return of certain goods to the value of £3O and £5 damages for unlawfully detaining same which is to bo heard at Palmerston North, the evidence of Reginald L. C. Wilkinson was taken. He stated that lie arranged to buy defendant’s business in tho Square at Palmerston, but after plaintiff had entered into possession of the business a hitch occurred and he was forced to withdraw from tho arrangement. Defendant took possession and thou refused to give the plaintiff his tools which wore two chairs, 1 urn, and 2 mirrors. His Worship fixed the costs at £1 9s.

Promisory Note Caße—ln the case McKenzie v. Mansfield, claim for £3O 7s 6d, being amount of dishonoured promisory note, which is also to be heard at Palmerston North the ovidence of Reginald L. C. Wilkinson was taken, the evidence being the same as in the former case. The costs in this case were fixed at £1 16s.

A Nursing Claim. Angelina Hogan, wife of a farmer at Motueka, sued Arthur Jennens, laborer, of Gisborne, for £37, being for boarding and nursing his deceased wife for 37 weeks at 20s per week. Mr. H. J. Finn appeared for the 'defendant.

Arthur Jennens, defendant, stated that the plaintiff was his mother-in-law, whose daughter he married about 10 years ago. Witness’ wife Succumbed to illness on January 18th last. After their marriage they lived in Otaki for about three years, and wore invited by Mrs Hogan to spend each Christmas at her home. They spent about 1 six weeks at JMrs Hogan’s each Christmas dumig their stay at Otaki. Plaintiff had never demanded payment for these visits. About three years after their marriage witness and his wife went to Pahiatua to reside, where his wife took ill and she underwent an operation at a private hospital in Nelson. On the invitation of her. mother, Mrs Jennens then paid a six months’ visit to her home, afterwards returning to Pahiatua. Five years ago witness and his wife came to Gisborne. About seven months later plaintiff invited Mrs Jennens and her two married sisters (also residing in Gisborne) to visit-her at Motueka. She accepted the invitation, and was away for three months. In 1905 witness’ wife was again ill, 'and the doctor advised hint to send her to Cambridge Sanatorium. She acquainted her mother of the fact, and Mrs Hogan replied inviting her to Motueka for a good change first, before trying Cambridge treatment. All the plaintiff’s letters had been destroyed. His wife did not reply at once, but on receipt of a second invitation, it was decided that she should accept. Witness accompanied liis wife to Motueka in November 1905. He remained there for three weeks. Plaintiff kept Mrs. Jennens with her untill July 1906, when she returned to Gisborne. Witness wont on to say “I had not the , slightest idea the plaintiff intended to charge me for boarding and nursing my wife, on this or any other occasion. " The first intimation of the plaintiff’s claim was when I received a summons in this action. I never agreed to pay the plaintiff, in fact the question of payment never onco arose between us until now. My wife never visited the plaintiff except at her pressing invitation. The plaintiff came to Gisborne about last Christmas and before returning homo pressed my wile to return to Motueka with her, but she refused to make another trip. When the plaintiff was here she did not tell mo that she had a claim against me for boarding aiid nursing my wife. If I had had the slightest intimation from the plaintiff that she intended to charge me I would not have consented to my wife remaining at Motueka, as I had a comfortable home for her hero. When the plaintiff left for home after her visit to Gisborne we parted on the very best of terms.”

Eleanor Edwards, wife of William Edwards, of Gisborne, bricklayer, deposed/ that; she Jiad nursed Mrs. •Jennens prior to her death in January last. She remembered “ Mrs Hogan paying her daughter' a visit about last Christmas. Mrs. Jennens mentioned to witness that "Mrs Hogan was pressing her to return to Motueka, but that she would not go as she had not long to live, and would not leave Arthur, (her hijsband). In the early part of her illness, in 1905, Mrs. Jennens told witness that she was advised to- go to the Cambridge Sanatorium, that' she had aquainted her mother of the fact, and that Mrs. Hogan had written in reply inviting her to come and stay ip Motueka. The letter added, she told witness, that if she were not well after her visit; she could then trv Cambridge. It was in consequence of that invitation that Mrs. Jennens accompanied her husband to Motueka about November 1905, and stayed there some time.

His Worship stated that the evidence would be forwarded on. He allowed 17s costs, 5s witness fee and £2 2s solicitors fee, total £3 4s.

TROUBLE IN MOROCCO

MASSACRE BY NATIVES.

United Press Association— OopyneM ■ AM”*^ nu from Cttsablftiita* a».jliar ink Thov declare that three tnhes, w censed at the now control o C toms and the progress of the and tramway works, entered blanca, uttering throats to massacre to bo an , = ite ness declares that the tribcH entered and proclaimed a Holy war. a Frenchmen, including a 1D a foreman, named respectively Rata and Masse, employed on the harbor works, two Italians, and a Spaniard, W< then pillaged European j Bh Tht refugees escaped by bribing the soldiers guarding the harbor ana tO l, messages state that a massacre occurred at noon. Is atives announced that the tribes were about to enter to massacre the French workmen They attacked the Frenchmen with clubs and knives, and. burned their corpses. It was 8 m the evening before the fugitives were able to leave tlio town. . M. Neuville, the French Consul, remained at his post.

CAUSE OF THE TROUBLE

Received August 1, 9.50 p.m. TANGIER, August X. D/. Meuli, a Frenchman from Casablanca, has reached Tangier. He states that many natives entered on the pretext of selling corn. assembled in the harbor and insulted and killed the native guards. Thereupon som’e armed European workmen appeared, but were instantly assailed and massacred. . The captain of the German ship state.-, that the outbreak was due to the Governor not taking precautions.

FRENCH WARSHIP. DESPATCHED. Received August 1, 9.50 p.m. PARIS, August 1. The crpisor Galilee has proceeded to Casablanoa. AUTHORS OF THE OUTRAGE. MUTILATION. OF THE MASSACRED. Received August 1, 11.33 p.m. LONDON, August 1. The Tribune states that 50 armed ICabyle tribesmen were the authors of the massacre. The tramway workshops were destroyed and many workmen were killed, their bodies being profaned and mutilated. , . The Kabyles then returned to their villages.

ASSISTANCE FOR FOREIGNERS

Received August 2. 0.23 a.m. PARIS, August 1. M. Richon’s despatches confirm the massacre at Casablanca. The French Government have taken measures to assist foreigners in ease it is needed.