RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Grey River Argus, Volume IX, Issue 704, 23 July 1870, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

; ', Thursday, JulY 21. • (Before W. H> Revell,. Esq.,. R.M.) The. adjourned charge against Michael Boweh, of'NemOna, of a' breach of the Public-house Act, was called on, and after hearing the evidence* the Magistrate inflicted a penalty of L2D and costs. Peter Robertson was brought up on a charge of being of unsound mind. The medical evidence did not confirm -the charge, and the defendant was discharged. ■ ••■- -v . ■ ; , .' : > Eliza Costridge, charged with drunkenness, was dismissed with a -caution. ; Judith Yeast, charged with making use. ,df obscene language in : a- public place; was fined L 5, or in default one month's im-. .prisonment. „ .•. y-.- -, .. „ ■ CIVIL CASES. \Jn dgments -. by default.— Peter White v.' ; Thomas Lardy, Ll7 Is lid ; Graham arid' Simmons v. 0. Boyle ; of -Spiall-and party, L 9 8s ]0d ; H. BarnlnU v. W. Quinlan, L 37 Ts 4kl ;and M^rks; y* Mrs = Monro, LI 10s. ' - '• ■A. R. Guinness y. A. S. Dreyer;— -I^ate .altered for three weeks. * T_li6mas and M'Beath y. , JR. Shannon, of Dunedin. — No return summons; adj.ourjned to : the 28th inst. : , „ L\ Magoffin v. J. Hudson.— A fraud summons for L 6 12s. Defendant was ordered to pay 5s per iveek, or in default 14 days' imprisonment. , „• ;...■;.; Jno. O'Cnrinor v. Culleryand Bleating. — Claim, L3oi 4a 3d., .Wrong service. Caso dismissed. H; BarnhjU v. ; .J. O'Connor.—Judgment confessed for L 56 6s 3d and costs. H! Barnhill v. S. Laurence.— L 5 105... No service. Date altered to the 26th. inslajnj.,),,, .>„ „.. „y, , .; r ;v , . Wjafco ij and }Yi,cHes v. J, West.--! Fra ud sumniqnsfor'L7 18s 6d. Ordered to pay' 10s per .week,', or, in default,, 14 days' im-. prJßonmeht. r ' '' '' - . - ■• ; ••;••■ j. Lee v. J. T. Birch.— Claim of L 7 12s. 'Judgment was given for plaintiff— L6 ids,? and costs. ' G.I Simmons v. W. Rae, — Claim of 8s; 'The amjoijn t, was paid, in,to ,C,P ur *> an^ the defendant stated thai the , account had

never been presented before the summons j j was served. Judgment was given for the J j amount paid into the Court, the plaintiff i to pay the costs— 9s. . , i W. Jpnes, v. W. B. Evans.— Fraud sum- ; hions for L 2 6s. Defendant ordered to ] pay- ,tl^e: amount in . three months from ] date, or, in default', 14 days' imprison- ! men.t. . < W. Jones v. Patterson.— Fraud sum- i mons. As defendant did uot appear, a warrant was orderod to issue for his apprehension, j v • ! • ; " f ' ! Ryan Brothers v.jDudley.^-r- Wrong service. Case dismissed. H. Pridgeon v. H. Barnhill.— Claim of LSI r 4s ; 6d. Adjourned until , Tuesday fnegb^G : \ a ':„' i■. . v ' : -:'- : J •% J ■■-: ' '.'- ':\l'"-i'' James Birch v. James Lee. — Claim of ;L7B, as. .damages for refusal to fulfil the qovenants of a lease, by retnoviug.and rebuifding a b^rr6k shed in iTainui street. Judgment was given for' L2o, and costs, 4«d a further sum of L2O if the defendant Refused to grant the plaintiff a right-of-way "Bff wide throughUhe shed^ni,tp i Tainui -•■■—-- -+ .4 Trustees. in Estate of W. r Moutray y. ' and Morrison. —Judgment confessed for L2l 8s Bd, and costs. Peter "Connelly v. Mary Rogers.— Fraud summons for L 6 19s 6d. Case dismissed, with costs. , , Friday, July 22. - ■„■:::■ ...... (Before J.. Green wood, Esq.j J.P.) DRUNKENNBSSir-John tM'Conarty, ■ 1 an old offender, charged with ,being. drunk arid disorderly) was^firied L 2, or four days' imprisonment. -=- Henry King, charged with a similar offence, was fined ps, this being his 'first offence.— Thomas Hickey, for a similar offence, was fined 10s. AHAURA. Thdbsday, July 21. (Before C. Whitefoord, Esq., R.M.) George Lay was charged with stealing cabbages to the value .of. 2s ( 6d, the property of Maurice Doolan:' "The owner of the farm had been missing produce from it for some time,' and on' July 10 the accused was found coming from it with a bag full, of cabbages. This was proved by the man in charge of the farm, which is situated on Totara Flat. Prosecutor did not wish to press the charge. Defendant said he went to the farm. to procure vegetables for a sick man, and finding no person in charge of the place, he took as much as he was, told tobring, intending to pay for the cabbages if he could see anybody to receive ;i payin9.nt. When defendant's man came up he did not give him time to say or do-a,nything before he was given in charge. The Bench cautioned defendant as to how he went into gardens for the future in the- of their owners, and as he had been locked up on Sunday he would be discharged. CIVII, CASES. Davies v. Gregory. — A claim of L 5 for professional services. No appearance of defendant. Verdict for amount claimed and costs. ■•■•:•■' Same (in the estate of Hayden and Ran kin) ,v. Hollo way.— Judgment for amount claimed and costs. Same v. G. , M r 'Kinnon. — Judgment confessed. Verdict' for amount claimed and costs. Same v. Janies Robertson. — A fraud summons. A verdict was obtained against defendant in this case at a former sitting of the Court. A share in a water-race at Moonlight was , seized; . ,by . plaintiff, but during the hearing of ari interpleader which followed, the Magistrate decided that the share did not belong to Robertson, who was now summoned as to his ability to satisfy the judgment. Defendant was examined by Mr Davies with reference to the water-race he was now working at. Defendant said it was not his property ; he was. working for wages, which he took' out in groceries at the store which was kept, by the owner of the share. Ho offered to pay 5s a week ; the first payment to bo made after four weeks. Tho Magistrate did not consider this offer satisfactory, and' ordered defendant to pay L 2 per week until the debt was paid, or in default to be imprisoned for one month. Levy v. Longmore. — A claim for L 7 43 9d, goods sold and delivered by D. Doyle. Judgment against defendant, who did not appear, for the amount claimed and ..costs. Doyle v Smith. — A claim forLll, for for building a boat at the Ahaura. No appearance of defendant. Plaintiff seemed determined . to have the money or the boat, as for the latter "he would like to see .the .man who. would cTare. lay a hand on. her*" .■. Judgment for 'amoiint twith costs. ' ; *. > ■ *■• M'Kenna v. Smitlk— rClaitn forLl4 lo]s,; for bread arid beer supplied. Judgment for amount claimed and costs. Same v. Gardiner.— -Enlarged till next Court-day. William Hughes v. John Reid.— A claim for L; 62 10s, for wages at 50s per week. Plaintiff f was engaged in January, to work, ;■' at Mr Reid's farm on 'Totara ' Flat, along with ten other men, twQ? of whom were to receive thg abbVe rate' 'of wages, the next got -30s per week. Defendant acknowledged engaging plaintiff, ' but -he" was riot worth more .than 30s a- week, which was the usual' 'rale 'of wages. The ■ two^ ; men ; he hired at 60s were extra good workmen, and were' worth the higher rate of wages." He (defendant) went' to Victoria on business, when ii 6 returned he found that plaintiff had neglected his work ; but he did not then, discharge; Mm<, as he,>thoiightplaintiff might improve. Through the carelessness, pf plaintiff he (defendant).lost-. over LlOb, and he was compelled to discharge him/ at- last.«; Ho : made.no agreement as to wages, but he was willing to pay L 37 10s -into., Gourt^which' siitn.-jhe-considered fair and reasonable. The Court, in giving judgment, said defendant should have discharged plaintiff when he found he, .did . not. suit -.him, • and .-in ( s the absence of any speciGc agreement, and it being in evidence that, men who were hired at the same time to do the same work,; with plaintiff were -getting 50s»a week, a verdict would be given for the amount, claimed with costs. • Mr. Davies foTplaivvtiff, My Frankly n for defendant. „v Warwick y. .CarteTv-nA;!) action to recover LlO, fop the us© of tv slaughteryavd. Pla.inJ;iff_s,aid. defendant had killed 20 head of cattle in his yard without his permission, and after haying received, notice to discontinue using, the yard.. The do-, fence was that the yard was out of repair;that ''defendant repaired it, and that, the price charged was excessive. 'An expert was , called, ,\yho . proved' that .under the circumstances 5s per head would be a fair charge. Judgment was given for L 2 5s with' costs. Mr Drury for plaintiff, Mr ..D^ayies for. defendant,, v.. „ . ,,,. . - „„ •„ ;• AitkenT.^avie3.-4A! clwht ? for |isdJ^3}i?

for services rendered and commission on accounts collected. Plaintiff said he served a summons at Camptown for defendant, for which he charged milage, 11s; he collected an account at Napoleon of L 2 for defendant, for which he charged 50 per cent., amounting to Bs, and he charged L 5 for distributing circulars with' reference to an anti-annexa-tion movement.' He had been engaged by the Annexation Committee at Greymouth to procure signatures to their petition, and .defendant had requested him to deliver circulars throughout the diggings against the movement. He refused at first, and told defendant he could not abt for and against the movement at one time, but,afterwards consented ■ to. distribute the circulars. The price charged was fair and reasonable. It was also part of his duty to draw attention to a letter in the. Grey . Valley Times of that week, written, by the defendant. He used all possible despatch in serving the summons at, Camptown, and the percentage on the account he collected was the usual charge for casual commission. Mr A.. A. Boag proved the engagement of plaintiff by defendant, and said he told defendant; that; plaintiff would require payment for his services* Defendaut said 'plaintiff did riot serve the summons in time, according to his . promise^ thereby causing defendant great inconvenience. There was nothing' said about payment, as he (defendant) at the time held an overdue promissory note of plaintiff's in liis possession, but he would allow plaintiff 5s for the work. With reference to the 20 per cent, on the money collected at Napoleon, he considered half the money sufficed, and would allow 4s. He (defendant) was not aware that plaintiff had" been engaged to take round the Annexation petition when he engaged him to deliver the circulars, and when plaintiff was requested to do so he consented unconditionally. ' The Magistrate, in -giving judgment, said that if defendant had not allowed, the item of 53 for service of the summons, it would be struck out, for it was within the knowledge of the : :Cottrt that the case had to be postponed in consequence of the summons not > being ■ served in time: The second item of Bs, for commission at the rate of 20 per cent, on the cash collected at Napoleon, would be allowed.; With respect to the L 5 charged for delivering the circulars, he would, without remarking on the case, allow plaintiff 20s, and would give judgment for the plaintiff for the 28s, together with the amount paid into --Court', making 1 iii all LI. 13s, with costs of Court. Mr. Drury for plaintiff. The defendant appeared in person. Several cases were struck out, and the Court adjourned to August 4th.