RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Kumara Times, Issue 200, 25 May 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, Mat 25. ‘ (Before M. Price Esq. 8.M.) . A DISOBEDIENT FATHER. Noah Symons vras brought up on-a charge of disobeying a Magistrate’s order for the maintenance of his wife and children in Canterbury. Constable Loftus deposed to having arrested the prisoner, from his description in the Police Gazette. Prisoner said he had no money, and it wasj a “ curious thing” that, he should be arrested without a warrant. Mr Sub-Inspector O’Donnell informed the Court that a warrant was in existence, and asked for a remand till the 31st instant. Symons was, accordingly, remanded. CIVIL CASES. McKenna y. Levett.—This was a case adjourned from last week for the production of a receipt. Mr Hawkins asked for a further remand, but his Worship, considering that there had been ample time to receive the document from Eeefton, granted .the application only on condition that the defendant pay plaintiff 10s for the day. This the defendant did, and the case was further adjourned till the 31st instant. .

Hartigan v. Thompson . Claim, work and labour LlO Bs. The defendant did not appear, Verdict for plaintiff for full amount claimed, with costs 19s. Roulston and M‘llroy y. Lynch.— Claim, account rendered L 4 9s, Mr Perkins for plaintiffs. The amount ytasf, a debt of Messrs M‘Kenna and M'Millan, whose business, with liabilities, had been purchased by defendant. Mr Roulston produced the advertisements to that effect, which had appeared in the Kumara Times. Mr Lynch said that his arrangement was that be should take all book debts and liabilities .provided the latter did not exceed L4O. He had received a list of the liabilities which he was to pay, amqhg which the debt in question was ' not'mentioned. He had seen the advertisements produced by the : other side-. He had jiot agreed to them and had contradicted them the next, day... f He produced the advertisement he referred? tct. i Verdict for defendant,, with

, ;Hartfganand Ldng.r. Rymi.—Claim,-, work and labour Ll 3. Mr Perkins for. defendant;' Thai • defence was partpay- : ment, and a set-off of L 6 7s 6d. Mr Hartigan admitted the set-off. The, discrepancy as to part payment occurred through his giving a receipt forv LlO on account of two payments of L 5 each. He had not received LlO at one time, 1 Mr Ryan deposed ‘that; a payment of LlO had been made on the 22nd of November last. Mrs Ryan corroborated this. Verdict for the plaintiff, LI 12s fid, with costs 19a. . The Court then adjourned.