R. M. COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1662, 19 March 1886, Page 2

R. M. COURT.

i 1 T|> ; YESTERDAY. . ■ : 5 ;(Bs&e &|^D t Esg., R.M.) * \ ' ] h~<i t^k CASES. % ".' : .- a^E.Tingey v. W. B. Ronntree. :~GlaJajg£Z.llß. Judgment for plain* C. Walker r. J. Doreen. — Claim, £9 15s, claim for rent. Mr Warburton for plaintiff. Judgment for amount and costs, solicitor's fee .£1 Is. F. W. Venn v. W. B. Rountree.— Claim, £81 18s 7d. Mr Ranking for plaintiff.— Judgment- for plaintiffimsat! costs, solicitor's fee ,£3 Bs. Alice Smith . >v. Artlitir Biddell.— kins for pfaintittyMrTrTTAlJnnioYtor defendant.? ... ,-.W... „ i [«~Y ! Alice\Staiih %l!e& depotii lo" jntering into an arrangement with Mr Biddell whereby she was 30s per week In return for h^tservioei as barmaid at th«f 'Club 1 Hotel. *fc£v K Vv; * lLl\ Y'HO'T ; Elizabeth Smith, irselghbor, gave eri. dence to hearing Mr .Biddell arrange with the girl to be m the bar at 10 b'clook m. the . morning and that he w-buld y>%\ her|K)3 pSc-w£ek.i Thewboth went away together and no other arrange*., ment copld' shave;- been ma/le se same evening she believed. . * & . A; ! Bldcleli ; sworn; deposed be. engaged the plaintiff for his bar at £1 per week. The arrangement was entered into r ia i one ; of the roombv .between andi • no; t o.tber . ,per.s^n ; .yfji.s preseht at the time. ...His reason fo* .iisiMssibg O£^tr" was thsshewas/m the baJbW of^srippJving. liquor on credit and 'not entering, up the amounts m t&l bck>k. <"/.H« saw, her give her young brother a can ot beer^and not receive pay meat.- —He did not speak to/heft at the time nor,, after wards about tids.il ;\Vhen .dismissing Ther lie merely tol 4^ r ikt^i»B,4i'B3Vtjßned; ' There w>re lots of other tilings he might have'fconiplained of but hedid not do so. One time th« p[a,ih^i|f wanted 'some money, on account and. M pSid her £2[ the balance Ihj ,yM her ! he -would- settle with her father who owed him a ; contra account '{for a tone time. .^he X " however, ..objected,' to' ' this proceeding. Her fatliit-V'sßie^'s'aWhad nothing-to dp with Herin the matter. HHre r However; considered fhaf tie was entitled to ,f lie accounts ib this way.: {# . ; , ■. ■' l! M Boeseh on 'being ;cal|edj ; j#fuse^ Jitf "come Mnsida/the. fipurt .till his expenses were tendered him." Tins" having be^rf done the witness wasjput m the box and deposed to being engaged at the Tannery, JTerxace "End. 'H% often went ta the K3liiß tHofe U JfyAitiuc apooafit there; ;]he,wa%aot . always, sober; hit liqaoc.jyas not' stopped" Bnt' : his •'er^l was. He neverjold MFBiddell tbst^ris barmaid was robbing him. He did see. her serv^drinks^ithoj^rec^iyjng payment jrot aulount miyht havej^een entef^^'% fo^r aaght ' he kne\j^^Wa conkrary^l • * tl ■;-i-*f.&.'T \ Tom Wpod,^ barman, it tha €hjb>HoteL next witnwwf remembered; the- ! j^aintifc being^enfefeeA ; v he l v.Upwfi < vfer,\^^not pres"ent~*^^re^ißie. ' He never Mwroy- • tnmg ,^*inrong > *Tibout plaintiff'sjNictions while' she was m the Hotelr"?^" The Bench cpnsidered.the'Case proved and " gavß^ ; jtfa^mlßni!*^6^:^isintiff for amount claimed, £7 ; costs, £$ lls 6d ; total, £10 Ils6dr4ess paid-in Courts £S lls. ~ ,-, Under, sextion^p _pf the R.M. "Court Bench lor 'ih oHier'tonsstier es.ecutKnim the case Smith v. Biddell, as he wished to impound M Jum^bf jSIt @b now ta Biddell's credvt in^ the' Cour^ paid by the defendant m the case Biddell v. Smith* FAILING I'oiiAlirTAlN. . Ajn^rpW Lpugh a^pS^red for neglectJngJko comply with; an orderfor maintenance, made against 'hiiii and now^fa arre»r3 r -£a2, |Cc, p^idf ; inti> I( Ob*t and. fche lease, .yas \wthjijra fin;'' ' r liVKiJtt i^ the box he was qiiesti6aed ;w as^ t&'; : hfi sobriety and just managed to Hiccup' oo* m the affirmative^ — _The Bench evidentally considered the JUDGMENT SUMMONS. T. Bnsh v./Joieph [JFesaop, judj?ment summons. — Claim £2 14s. The Bench asked-the defendant if he intended to pay and received a distinct intimation to the r effect . ;tha^ he -^ould never pay the amount, as Bush lifLa been livingfor weeks past ion hi& hospitality, and he cohEideved-they werejquita.j I^©fendant was then placed m the ,witne» box and when swxxtn he said he was a brewer ; he hadearnednotbinjf for weeks jjasfc; he had jdo propWtv. /In reply to thl : BenMWo wh^ Wilad b«enTdoiog he stated he-uatKdoNeLa lot^of hard work, heinew. that He.was, working fP-tJ^jS- West taking out a debt; ;! *He was working out debts -foT-the^past-^ix weeks ; " working d— — d hard to make a- comfortable home and>|hought it was not fak^oi^ließenoh totfty^ and get at him/ ■ :: -?'.' ; .Vi^ : ~-%' • ■*' f -' ■-•- Several tiii^^iils^ giving 1 his evidence the witness was caufipfied by the Bench thkiu&t^ 3 he restrou^ himself he would be cdmmitted fdr contempt of Court. . Ith^ip^inCiffTe^djßavoredr^riyaveTthat Jessop T _v?as , possessed of a* 45-guinea watch ac6oraii%^tb :< his^bw^ itatement, buinth^ Bench-con«iidereA the . farce had gone far enbugh, 'as ' tljo^ court i^iaflj be- . tcpmipg-jinpre Jifce r tharj* hallof v.' '" .. i: 1 "•'-''ai«i> The case WSs^tberef ore* on tjieTgfdun'ds "Of/imufficieat evidenps on r tb,e*pSrt'of plaintiff to proVe d^ft^a^ft ability to payi"; ifrVjli'-Z* The Court then -adjourned. h,Mi f«.-m^..:> ■>.. „ ■; . '■ .-■; ■ . ' ■■■ i -r,. i iJbaob hJ: