MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2085, 10 January 1908, Page 1

MAGISTERIAL.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 9

(lielore Mr. W. A. Barton, S.M.) Alleged Theft. —John Lynch, To Karaica, was charged with stealing tho sum of 10s, the property of Edward Goife, interpreter. —Detective Maddoru stated Unit some of the witnesses had left and he did not propose to proceed.—Tho case was struck out.

Undefended Civil Cases. —-Judgment by default was granted in tho following undefended civil cases: M.ickrell and Colley (Mr Burke) v. J. K. Morgan, £l9 3s 9d and costs £2 3s Od; 0. M. McCabe v. L. Cbaimers, £1 18s, costs os; E. V. Fenton (Mr. Sainsbury) v. W. H. Jones, £6 10s and costs £1 Us (id; A. Clement (Mr iSlock) v. W. Jones, £1 14s Kid and costs 13s; A. Clement (Air Stock) v. F. Parsons, 12s lid and costs 14s; Humoii and Smith (Mr Burke) v. John Brooking, £2l 6s and costs £2 Its; Rangina Paora (Mr Finn) v. M.itonga Turei, £3 7s and costs £1 3s 6d; To Urikora to Mnnihera (Air Finn) v. Alatenga Turei, £2 9s ami costs 10s; Hamon and Smith (Mr Burke) v. Sarah Palmer, £2 and costs 10s.

Claim for a Rooster. —Sarah .Harrington v. Jessie Pritchard-.- 'Air Roes appeared for defendant. Plaintiff stated that she was claiming 3s for a rooster or its return. She had lost fowls for years. Tho fowl- in question was watched and observed in defendant's yard oil 12th December. Asked for the bird, but defendant would not hand it over but admitted that tlie rooster was there. Witness actually saw .tlie rooster enter defendant’s yard. By Afr ltees: Spoke to defendant three days after seeing tlie rooster in defendant’s place. There had been trouble about the fowls and they often trespassed. Defendant did not say that she know nothing about tlie rooster and neither did she say that if it was there she could go and take it.—Air Rees stated that defendant had a fence put up us plaintiff’s fowls were a nuisance.— Defendant deposed that on 16th December, plaintiff came to her house and demanded tlie rooster. Her son and two others were present at tho time. She told Mrs Harrington that if tlie fowl was there she could tako it away. Asked her once to shut her fowls up. Know nothing about tho rooster in question. Plaintiff stated that her son threatened to shoot any that came in.—James Pritchard said ho was present when Airs Harringtion came over for the rooster. He corroborated defendant’s evidence. By plaintiff: Did not remember threatening to shoot any fowls.—His AYorsliip said that it was quite likely that the rooster did go into the yard but it was also quite likely that it came out again. Defendant and her son swore positively that they did not have the fowl and judgment would be for tho defendant.

Threatening Behavior.—James Alullooly was charged with threatening behavior in firing a. revolver and threatening to shoot complainant, Elizabeth Beatrice Alullooly and her children.—Air T. Alston Coleman stated that tho revolver had been handed to the police and defendant withdrew proceedings.—-The case was accordingly struck out. ‘ Judgment Summons.—R. Car.’ile v. R. Allien, £6 6s Gel. All'. Hoi appeared for the judgment creditor. As a witness was absent, the evidence of defendant was taken. He stated ho was a casual laborer with tho Public AVorks Department. Ho was married with throe children to support. Paid 9s weekly for rent and since December lie had earned £7 12s. His average earnings would not exceed £2 per week. Ho had lost ten days owing to the Christinas holidays and had been ill himself. His wife also was an invalid. He was not prepared to make any offer.-rTlie case was adjourned for a fortnight, oil . payment of a day’s wages and train fare by plaintiff. . Drunkenness. — Charles Dames, ailias Cucumber, appeared on a charge of being found drtuVk in Peel street on Wednesday. Ho pleaded guilty and declared that lie had lost 20 sovereigns. Ho was sentenced to seven day’s hard labor. On his own application a prohibition order was issued against him.