Resident Magistrate's Court, Foxton.

Manawatu Herald, Volume II, Issue 272, 7 June 1889, Page 2

Resident Magistrate's Court, Foxton.

I W-:;.-™ sth June, 1889. j (Before H. W. Brabant, Esq., 8.M.) j CIVIL CASES. John E. Johnston v. G. Rout. No appearance. ' .->ame v. Eobert Walburton. Case struck out. G. E. Williams v. Wi Katene. The E. M. stated that Major Tuke's judgment is for the defendant, eaob party to pay his own costs, but nqt having the written judgment with him, will read it at Palmerston. T. F. Gibson (collector of rates) v. C. H. Collins Claim £1 16s 9d, for rates. No appearance of defendant Appointment and rate book produced. Judgment for amount and costs 6s. Same y. Theophilus Easton— Claim 6s Bd. No appearance of defendant, i Amount paid ; case struck out. Same v, Bebecca l-aston-Olaim £2 13 Amount paid, case withdrawn. Same v. Edward I awrence — Claim £1 7s Id. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount and I costs 13s. . .... B. Lepram v. T! P. Wi'lianus — Claim £1 9s. No appearance of plaintiff. Case struck out with costs ss. J. W. Stewart v. Davies and Stuart— Claim £74, 18s Bd. Mr HanUios for defendants. Case adjourned for a month for evidence to be taken in We lington. F, de Bidder v. Arthur Kirk. — Claim £20 2s Id on a judgment summons. Mr Hanktns for judgment creditor. ' A. Kirk deposed on oath -The i order for 5s a week was obtained in April last ; am a married man, have three children ; pay 7s a week rent; was driver for G. Coley at 7s a day when judgment was obtained ; I left; the Ytork 14 days ago, but am digging potatoes by contract at 9d per bag I was in Foxton in April last at the Foxton races ; I was admitted to enclosure f reft ; I had only 5s to speculate ; I put that on the totalisator; a friend of mine put lOg on for me. Mr Eeid, the waiter at the hotel put it on for me ; I have not paid him back ; no one else put any more on for me; I have not been able to pay this 5s a week, my ex-. peases hay» been too great ; my wife m laid up, nod ban Md to wy fc*

waek for a girl ; I have been in constant employment with Co ey; debt is purely for necessaries ; I have received my wages ; since the date of the order I have paid nothing for the doctor; I have paid since the 3rd •pril to the chemist about 4s or 5s a week ; I have paid for it in cash ; I ■•* have pnid wages for a servant np to the last fortnight ; I have spent m^ney in yankee grab at the hotels j I know .yankee grab; l know dry yankee grab ; I took the protection of the Bankruptcy Act within a year and a half ; this debt has been incured for necessaries of the house since. To R.M. — I have nothing more to say. To Mr BEankins — I have paid no rent since the 3rd April. To B.M. — I cannot say more than I will try to pay the same order. The R.M.— The order is made on the grounds that the debtor has had the means to nay. It is ordered that 45s be pnid within 7 days with costs, or 9 days imprisonment in Wanganui gaol. CRIMINAL. '■ G. A. Tapp v. William Sandbrook, charged with being drank and disorderly on 27th May. The accused ! pleaded guilty. W. L. Coe being sworn, ■ gave evidence against the accused. - . Fined 20s, costs 9s, witness ex* penses ss, or 3 days imprisonment in Wanganui gaol. Patrick Guerin (registrar of dogs) v Heta Ngatuhi. Defendant wag charged with having an unregistered dog in his care. Defendant stated the dog belonged to his son who is 18 years old, he is sometimes at his house, sometimes elsewhere. P. Guerin, on being sworn, said— I am registrar of dogs; I called at Heta's house on 19th February, and saw this greyhound ; I called again, on 28th May. the dog was still there ; and I called again on 29th. Majc ; Heta stated the dog belonged to his, boy. I tried all I could to register the dog, but he said he would go to Court. To defendant— You were not at home when I first went to your house, nor the second time, but a girl said she would get the money from • her father. On the third call yw were there. I know you said tlitt dog belonged to your son, but I told* you that so long as the dog was at your place you would be responsible. I did apply to your son for the money 1 * and told you so. Your son said hie had given the clog to his uncle. ' ' ' j '■ . The R.M. decided that he was liable, as he was the owner of th# premises where the dog, was s^Skt The judgment was therefore tiiia? l Wi .. must pay a fine of ss 'and cost* 7s. If not piskid within ifp weeks x to be ". imprisoned Jor three days witL hardJ .-i labor. ----*-.