RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. FOXTON.

Manawatu Herald, Volume III, Issue 15, 22 October 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. FOXTON.

Wf.DK E9DAY, OCTOliEtt '•>(", 1880. (Befora K. Ward, Esq., R.M.) ATTEMPTED MTJBDER. Francis Runisey was brought up on remand from the Otaki Court, charged wi^h attempting to murder a native girl at Otaki named Tioriori. Detective Sullivan, who brought the prisoner from Wauganui, applied that the case against the prisoner might be remanded until next Wednesday, October 27. He produced a telegram from Sub Inspector Qoodall, relating to the matter. Prisoner sttougly objected to tlie - cuse being again remanded. He said that ho was innocent, that he had been remanded on a previous occasion, but no evidence whatever had been brought against him. Further, "while she wwats t being detained in custody, the guilty party would have time to get away. He was remanded until October 27, at Foxton. ; •-■ V H ; There was no other police* business. V CIVIL OASES. The adjourned case of Martin M'Gauley v. Kiriona Whamaro, chum £60, for damage to plaintiffs hand,^ was called on. Mr Hawkins, for the^jf defendant, applied for permission to^Jj call another wituess, but Mr flunking, ■> for the plaintiff, objected, and his Worship refused to allow the case to be reopened. As there was another case pending over the same dispute,

&

counsel reserved theit addresses until the two cases were completed. Guerin and M'Uauley v. Kitiona Whamaro —Claim £10, for loss sustained through defendant's interfetence with the Foxton feny, on August 27. The evidence of the two plaintiffs ami Patrick Mangan was taken in support of plaintiffs' case. For the defence, Kiriona gave evidence, denying that he loosed the punt ropes, or in any way interfered with it ; but he admitted ho was half drunk on the occasion. . Tamihana te Hoea also gave evidence for the defence. At the conclusion of the evidence, the counsel for the respective parties addiessed the Court at considerable length. ' ; i * The Court gave judgment as follows': —In the case Martin M'Gauley v. Kiriona, claim £60, for damage done to plaintiff's hard, judgment for plaintiff for £25 ar.si costs, £12 4s. In the Cdse Giu-rin Mid 3i'Gauley v. Kirioaa, claim £10, for. interterence with the Foxton ferry, judgment for plaintiff for £4 and costs, £l 18s. J. Buckley v. H. Ward.— Claim £10 lCs, for woik done The parlies had been working as mates for a considerable time, though plaintiff alleged he was a sub-contractor under defendant. He was unable to bring any evidence in support of his case, and was nonsuited with costs, 245. 'i'utana te Whata v. W. Schipper — Claim £4, being vatne. of a watch given to defendant to repair, but noi returned on application. Mr fiankins appeared for plaintiff, who deposed — I know defendant ; some time ago 1 gave him my watch to mend ; he was then occupying a room above • the shoemaker's shop: I had wound my watch up too tight ; he said he would repair ifc for 5s ; I asked him to let me have it back the same afternoon ; he said, '• Come tomorrow ;" I went io his place the day after the morrow, and. found he had gone ; I heard he was at Wangauui, aud went up to get my watch ; I asked him for my watch ; he said, " What watch ?" I said, " The OU3 I gave you at Foxtou above the shoemaker's;" lie replied, "I remember ; it is at Palmerston "; he then sat down and wrote a letter, which he tore up; ho then wrote another letter, which he gave me, and asked me to take it to a man at Palmerston, who would give me my watch ; before he gave me the letter he asked me for ss>, fot the repairs ; I said, " Show n.e my watch, and I will give you the money "; the man at Palmeiston to whom I gavo 'he letter said he had no watch time like mine ; it was a small, open-faced one ; there was a mark on the side where tho watch was wound up. — In leply to the Court, defendant said he admitted receiving a watch from plaintiff, and had not returned it ; he had a watch in his possession, the owner of which he did not know ; it was a patent lover watch, but plaintiff claimed from him a Geneva. If in 14 days no one claimed the one he had, he was willing to return that to Tatana. He had not entered Tat-.ma's watch in his book when it was brought — Bis Worship said that as defendant admitted receiving a watch from Tatana, and had not returned it, judgtneui must be given for plaintiff for amount and costs — Defendant said he was unable to pay the amount. — Mr Hankius said his client did not want thft money, but the watch. He would not allow defendant any time in which to pay the amount. The Court then adjourned.