Resident Magistrate's Court, Foxton.

Manawatu Herald, Volume III, Issue III, 4 July 1890, Page 2

Resident Magistrate's Court, Foxton.

Before H. W. Btttbftnt fisq, tUI« Wednesday 2nd July, 1890. Ctvil. W; J. Quin v Mudford Bros. — claim £100. Mr Hanking appeared for defeir dants, and asked for judgement for dtfeudants, Ike K-M. said the statute made it clear that be could not do so, as if from any cause t'>& plaintiff shall fail to appear and if the defendant shall not admit the demand the Court shall strike the caae out. The case ;vas therefore struck out with costs of Court heie, nil, (hiigtchurch. £1 - 2 witnesses 10s 6d each, Solicitor's fee £3 Bs. .John Harris v >\ Tanslay. No pi-oof of lervioo ; adjourned to next sitting d»y. - John Harris v Thomas Pureell— claim £1 Cs. No appearance of defendant. Judgement for plaintiff for amount and costs 7s. Edward Coley v (}. Coiey— claim £1 bs lOd. No appearauce of either parties ; case struck out. Fox ton Butchering Co. vFrederick Taylor- claim £2 2i5. No appearance of defendant ; judgement for amount and coats 14s. Joseph Nathan & Co v Jane Warburton — claim 10s. Mr Hankins appeared fur the plaintiffs ;no appearance of the defendant. O. Fw Short gave ovider.ce and judgement was given for plaintiff for 5s and coats Gs in addition to os al* ready paid into Court. E C. Foot v Mrs Oliver — claim £2 2s. Mrs Oliver appeared and admitted the claim. Judgement for amount and co>ts Os no execution to be issued till the end of August. E. C. Foot v. W. S. Young— clmidi £1 He q&. No appearance of defendant Mr Ray for plaintiff. Judgement r amount and c >s's Gs. E. C. Foot v Heta— claim £1 Is No appearance of defendant Mr I'ay for plaintiff. Judgement for amount and costs 7s. G. A. Tapp v Michael Horgan ; no appearance of defendant. AY. P. LVmer said he was a guard on the Government train betwepn Palmerston and Foxton. On the oth h'"i defendant gave his name as Michael Horgan and travelled from Paluvrston to Foxton without paying his faiv. The money was not pail afterwards. The usual i.ire is Hs 4d with Is fine for not paying at station. John Imlie gi-ve corroborative evidence. G. A. Tapp said that on the 9th of list mouth the station master comp'ained about a man, and on speak* ing to him he gave his nam-i ai Michael Horg-an, a tailor a' Patea He admitted having ridden in the train witnout paying his fare. He said he would send the amouijt down. The R.M. fined the defendant 40.* and costs 9s. L. Lavney v T. P. Williamsclaim £1 17s Gd. The plaintiff being unable to find the hearing fee of Bs, the defendant generously lent him the sum. Ij. Larney sued for balance of wages having been dismissed for refusing t'i do as ordered. 11. Barton supported the plaint ff. T. P. AVi'liana with his sons gave evidenc to the plaintiffs refusal to do what he was told to do. The Resident Magistnte decided that plaintiff was entitled to 2 weeks wages, less passage money and gave judgment f or loa and 2s costs. Robert Barton v T. P. Williams - claim £1 19s 5d R. Bartou sued for uweoks and 5 days wa.es, and admitted he left of h's own accord without notice. On leaving the defendant, had paid him £1 18s <id hut stopped £1 10s Gd for passage money, drinks, and a week's notice. It appeared that on settling np ihf plaintiff had had i\x> account of what he was 'hie dpfecdanfc, and hud acknowledged the it ms and balance ns correct. Judgment went for defendant «if;li 9s costa. E. (\ FootvJ. B. Wirk— claim £f> 11s (Id for professional attf-ndance. Mr Rai- for plaintiff. AVirk objec'pd to the charges and to the visits, but on putting Mrs Wirk in to prove his case, it resulted in Fiihstniuing the case for the plaintiff. Judgement for pbintiff with costs 10?, Solicitor's fee 21s ordered to be paid at the rate of 30s a month. E. C. Eoot vO. P,. Wft'sli claim £3 H-) Od. Mr Ray <br plaintiff. Judgement for plaintiff for amount claimed and costs Gs no execution tn issue for two moDtha.

%. C. Feot v Albtrr, ShaMfc— Clsim £1 U Od. Mr Kay for plaintiff. Judgment for 18s and coste 6s no execution to i&sue for one month.