RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, PALMERSTON

Manawatu Times, Volume II, Issue 23, 6 January 1877, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, PALMERSTON

(Before R. Ward, Esq., E.M., arid J. T. Dalrymple, Esq., J.P.) CIVIL "CABEB. J. Scorar y. J. E. Gilbert— This case had been adjourned from last sitting of the Court, and was now dismissed on account of the absence of the plaintiff. Mr Warburton, who represented the plaintiff, afterwards stated that his (Mr Warburtbn's) absence was owing to a misapprehension on his part. It was usual to take the criminal business first, and the civil cases at 11 o'clock. His Worship said that, as there were no criminal cases, the Court had to proceed at once with the civil, and the case, m question, having been dismissed, could not be called on again without the consent of the defendant. Mr Warburton said the defendant refused his consent, and the case therefore lapsed. Thos. Moffatt v. Max Nicholson.— Claim, £6 Is Bd. Judgment, by default, for amount and costs 13s. Same v. Benor Jensen. — Summons not served. Charles Hall v. G. Bobinson. — Dismissed on account of the absence of complainant, who afterwards put m an appearance, but could not induce defendant to consent to the case being called on again. Gilbert v. Scorar. — Summons not served. H. Phillips v. G. Webb.— Judgment summons. Adjourned on account of the illness o£ the plaintiff. Bichter & Nannestad v. H. Dowling. — Judgment summons. Claim, £11 15s. Ordered to be paid at once, with costs £1 4s, or one month's imprisonment. D. B. Lewers v. Heko. — Claim, £1. Judgment, by default, for amount and costs 9s. W. G*. Haybittle v. W. Fletcher.— Claim, £4; costs, 13s. Judgment by consent. LICENSING COURT. The adjourned application of Charles Moore for a transfer of the license of the Palmerston Hotel to Sylvester Coleman was. then called on. His Worship the B.M. enquired if the police had any further objection to the application besides that which had been overruled by the Court. Constable Purcell then stated that, though he had no objection to Mr Coleman, he did not consider Mrs Coleman a fit person to conduct a hotel, as she had been convicted of theft, and her family connections were m other respects objectionable. After a strong protest from Mr Coleman, and an intimation that the statements of the constable woiild have to be investigated m another Court, the application was refused.