RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 383, 14 July 1876, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

-July 6. ; (Before H. TV. iiolnr.Kun, Esq., K.M.) JUJj'GM f-ViJ JIO.NSiia. Jamec Brown v. W. ,5. Srrath.— £lB 9s. 7d. JS'o appraitucc oi defo-dam

Defendant was ordered to pny £lG9a. 7d., l<Ls. Wq. crusty, and professional ice—in a!!, £].g S S . 44. —by instalments,. to be &< ss. 4d. to be paid on 7<h August, mid subsequent innt'ilments 'of £2 to be paid on 1 Jit> /ih of cac-b successive month, until the '"."hole is paid. Failing payment of any instalment, defendant to. be impriSOi cue L " 10Bt h ia'Dun'edir,<gaol. if- P- Hjorring v. Charies Ciirioi'd.— Claim £'B 3s. 2d. No appearance of defendant. Defendant; ordered to pay £8 Bs. 2d., costs lis. 3d., and 21s. professional tee, 111 ail, £*9 15s. 6d., to be paid forthwith. Failing payment, defendant to be imprisoned for one month in Oamaru gaol.

Juir 7. Catherine Neylon was brought up; in custody, on charge of having no lawful visible means of support. Sergeant Smith informed the Court that she had been, a servant at an hotel' in Nasebv, and had suddenly go'ne away on foot, late at night, under the delusion that her life was threatened, She had next been heard of at Maisey's Eyeburn Hotel, where she was kindly received, but in the middle of the night she had' taken her departure, and about seven o'clock in the morning had presented herself, without hat or shawl, at Mr. Foster's farm, near Hamilton. Mr. Foster, who was called as a witness, deposed to the woman arriving at his house at half-past seven on Wednesday morning, apparently after travelling all night, and with her boots almost worn otf her feet, and no hat. He wondered she had survived the night's very severe irost. She was perfectly quiet, but he did not think her fit to take care of herself. She had been taken into custody at his request. lietnanded to Monday for medical examination.

JtTLY 8. Stephens v. Corporation of Naseby.—■ Claim of £lO 16s. lOd. Eor balance of account upon contracts for roofing and flooring.'i own Hall. £1 lis. had' been paid into Court. Mr. Kowlatt for plaintiff, Mr. Hertslet for defendants. The The evidence of the plaintiff was taken to prove that certain extras had been done, and the contracts and working, drawings were produced. The amount of the contrast for flooring was £438, but in the plaintiff's bill of particulars it vras set down as £448 10s. 6d., and credit was given for payment to the amount of £440 10s. 6d. Mr. Rowlatt asked to bo allowed to amend the bill of particulars, by altering the'amount of the contract to the proper sum, and by reducing the credit for money paid to £430. He said that the fact was that his client had £B> or thereabouts, owing to him on the contract. The Magistrate said that such an. amendment couid not be made without the consent of the other side. Alter some argument Mr. Hertslet said that, if Mr. Stephens would produce his books and prove that he had only received £430, he would be willing to allow the amendment. Mr. Stephens said he had no book but his bank book, but that he had received, on account of the contract for flooring, only £3OO and £3O, and £2l 17s. 6d. for extras. Mr. Hertslet pointed out that this was something different again. Mr. Stephens was now only admitting that he had received £351, instead of £440, and that it,wa3 evident Mr. Stephens' memory was not to be depended on as to what moneys he had really received. After some , further argument Mr. Bowlatt elected to be non-suited. To this Mr. Hertslet objected that the case should more properly be now dealt with, when a verdict would certainly have to be found for the defendants. The Court held that the plaintiff's common law right to take a nonsuit was not taken away by the statute under which the Court was created. Nonsuit recorded, with £3 18s. expenses of defendants.

Jdlv 10. Catherine Ney'toii, churned with having no visible nieaas .of support, was discharged. Catherine Neylon, charged with being of unsound mind, was remanded to Dimedin for farther the certificate of Dr. Whitton showing that she required to be put under restraint.

July 13. Owens v. Stephens.—Defendant in this case had applied under the .Resident Magistrate s Act, 1870, to giye his evidence in Naseby, he having been sumtLoned to Dupedin, and the day had been fixed for taking his evidence; but, there being no proof that plaintiff had been served with notice, the hearing was sdjurned to July loth.