R.M.COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume X, Issue 1481, 15 October 1885, Page 4

R. M.COURT.

THIS DAY.

(Before R. Ward, Esqi, R.M>) . ASSAULT. , .w . -- ■ George. Hartley was charged with assaulting one Otto Westerholm on Saturday last at Messrs Richter arid ipo.'s mill. .■ ;■ ' ' ;. .:.:•.-■■• „/■,,.■• -...: Mr J. H. Hankins appeared for complainant. .:..,;-; . ,*, v The evidence of the latter, went ,t»! show that he was instructed by Mr Rfchter on the day m question to take a horse called Charlie and use him, as the one he was m the habit of using was away.< He took the horse as directed, and subsequently, on Hartley knowing of it, he (Hartley) abused, him and then struck him. The present case would 1 hdt have been brought had accused apologised, but he refused ''to do this. .:- * 5 *' <&...' * &Hi Accused admitted the assault, and offered m excuse that he^had! brought i the horse from Tahoraite, and, the animal being very tired be was annoyed li, to see him used by the complainant; ! IJe also asked< Mr : Jen.ssen if ' lie had tsd 'com- ' plainant to use the horse and Mr Jenssen ' said he had not. ' : ' r ■'"' v ' '"' The bench fined the accused 10s, 11s costs, and £l Is counsel's fee, total £2 2s. ■ ■ ■■--—- ■ . / ■ CIVIIi CASES. V ' "Wai re "Wake y. N; .Berquest^Claim £4 10s, for stumping section ; of iand^be-' longing to defendant. -'..v Mr G. F. Hawkins tfor plaintiflE, and Mr J. H. Hankins for defendant. Plaintiff deposed to having done the: work and receiving only i^Os on .account.; Defendant depbsed "' that, the native stumped about three '<{nattero o^an'acre' and then left, and wanted 'to be 'paid ; some £4 which he refused, and told him he would not pay anything until the 'job was finished. •.,:.• : ... w Further evidence was f taken, f or de,-f fence to prove the amount of work done,, and also the incomplete nature of: same. Plaintiff rton-suited. . J. S. Jolly v. Mrs pevery.-^Claim, £3 2s 6d, claim for glazing two windows. ' ; Mr A. S. Baker for defendants '' ' ' Plaintiff stated m reply to Mr Baker that he had received his instructions to do the work from Mrs Devery, atid that as she was'a customer of his^he did not present his bill till the end of the;tribrfth, and when he did so she refused to pay/ R. Kibblewhite gave evidence i^ft breaking the window and. haying < some conversation with Mrs I)eyeryi when she asked him who would be the^best; person to get to do it, he told her Mr Jolly, but she never asked. .w|the^ to replamHhe wmdbws. . ;'~ r " /J :\\" : -: l -'\' : " . '' ' " Defendant denied shfeae^er; asked plaintiff to dp the work, !( ' ' , The bench gave? j ndgmeni^for plainti ff and costs, and stated, thatlt ivyas.eyiden.t] without doubt that the defeh'daht instructed Mr Jolly to do iheuAvork; and> that .she had her remedy; against i Mr' Kibblewhite for the daraage ,he ; had effected. j A. Peterson v. J. Harper. Interpleader summons by Mrs Harper if or seizare of., goods averred to belong to ' Her^ sfacli, goods having been transferred to "her by 1 deed from her husband.. - ■ .j iyi.i>.Mr (t. F, for plaintiff and " Mr J. H. Hankins for interpleader. After considerable evidence had been taken as to the relative commercial positions of the interpleader aqd her husband/ both at the time the time. 'the' deeJ^was/ executed and subsequently, '! '*' „ MrHawkinß asked for a inohtiuit 6n the grounds that no evidence liad been ; adduced to prove the registration of the", deed and the document itself gave no information on the matter. Mr Hankins asked for an adjournment m order to prove the registration' which after some discussion between counsel and Bench was granted. The Bench eriving opinion that • theexecution creditor should not pay the expenses to be contracted during the adjournment. . ..■■■.:.■■ ''■■■■ The Court then adjp irned till next Court day. :