Resident Magistrate's Court Foxton.
Wednesday 2nd April. Thos. Funston v. Claim £4 17s lid for goods sold and delivered. Mr Ray for plaintiff. Judgment for plaiutiff and costs 7s. Thos. Funston v. Eperima — claim £4 18s Cd. Mr Ray for plaintiff. Judgment foranviuut claimed and costs 7s. IMendant allowed two months to pay in. Thos. Funston v. Renata — claim £o lls 8d Mr Ray for plaintiff. Judgment fo- amomt and costs 11s, solicitor, 21s. Sam» v. Pitihen— claim £1 129 Cd— Mr Ray for plaintiff. Judgmi-nt for amount nn-l costs 98 Same v. Paora claim i' 44s MiRay for plaint'ff. This wns a cla'in for a coat and vest made to measure but not' delivered. Defendant had not paid for same and they were retained. Plaintiff valued goods to him at 80s. Judgment for plaintiff, and the Court assessed the damages at 20s mak'ng £1 11s 6d, costs 7s. Donald Stewart v. Frank Gay — claim £1 Is for boots. No appearance of the defendant. Judgment for pla ntiff for amount claimed and costs 6s. E. Osborne v. W. S Langley— claim £5 14s, for goods ■nd horse hire. Mr Uay appeared for p aint'ff No appearance of defou .la;it. Judgcaeut for amount and c">at10^, solicitor, 21s. Tlios. Ftinston v. Edward Toliuer
■—claim £11 8» lOd for goods. Mr Eay for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount and costs 275, solicitor 21a.
C. Honore v. C. Kemp. No appearance of either party. Case struck out.
Foxton Borough Council collector v. George Coley — claim £4 Os 5d for rates. No appearance of defencla.it. Judgment for amount and costs Os. Nerehana te Whare v. Eobevt ; White and others — olaim £11 10s 3d. Mr Eay for defendant. £2 9s 3d had been paid into oourfc. Judgment for amount paid into com*t costs 3s. A. Musgrove v. J. MoCorniick— claim 163. No appearance of either party. Thomas Funston v. Tio Tio— olaim £4 17s lid. Mr Ray for plaintiff. Judgment for amount and costs 7b. E. Osborn* v. W. T. E. Cookc^im £17 14s 4d. Mr Eay for plaintiff. No appearance of defem dant. Judgment for g amount and costs 20s, solicitor 21g. jPJjMINAL,. T. Clime y. Patrick Murpay and John Wray— assault. Mr Bay for defendant. ; : Patrick Murphy v. Thomas Clune, assault. The c^ses were heard together. The B.M. said it was a question as to who struck the first blow. The witness Wray was not in a position to see. It appears that what the complainant Clune says that Murphy struck the first blow, is true, but as I cannot determine who struck the fiist blow, both cases are dismissed. W. H. Howe v. Edward Kirby — assault. Mr Eay appeared for the complainant. : Tho defendant asked for au adjournment for legal assistance. Adjournment allowed on payment of costs, witness* 15s, prosecutor, 17s, Solicitors fee, aud court fees.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MH18900408.2.12
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Manawatu Herald, Volume III, Issue III, 8 April 1890, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
476Resident Magistrate's Court Foxton. Manawatu Herald, Volume III, Issue III, 8 April 1890, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.