MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Manawatu Times, Volume III, Issue 58, 19 July 1879, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, 18th July. - [Before R. Ward, Esq. R. M.] „ There were no criminal cases before the Court. " v CIVIL CASES. . J. Blink v. Gr. Aitken.— Claim £17, being balance for account for board 1 and lodging. Mr.. Pryor appeared gor defendant, and offered to pay ten shillings a week. His Worship" gave judgement;f or plaintiff for amount .arid costs, to be paid at the rata of ten shillings a week. J. 0. Thompson v. John. Robinson.--Claim,:Jßl2 ss. lid., being balance of account sor goods sold and delivered.; Defendant stated that the ; greater part of- the debt had been contracted while he was m prison. He was willing to pay for what h e Himself had been supplied with. His Worship aaid he was aware that the defendant's wife had a protection order, but if during the currency of that order he had ' cohabited with bis wife, lie-would be held, responsible. If . defendant cpuld'pr.ove wbat goods had been obtained while he was m prison.'Mrs. Robertson would be liable. ' The defendant s?iid that it' waa his Worship's place to- find that out (laughter) . Judgment was gjyep f or the "plaintiff for amount and'costs. ;B. Poole v. C. Hodges, debt £4 9a. Defendant admitted owing plaintiff £4 4s. 6d., plaintiff would not accept that sum. After hearing the evidence, his Worship . gave judgment for £4 4s. 9d. and costs. W. Reid v. John Belk.— This was an ejectment summons,- m wh'ch.Mr. Warburton appeared for the plaintiff/ and Mr. Staite for defendant. His Worship, before proceeding with the base, asked Mr. Staite if be had any -remarks to offer respecting what wouid.take 'place at Baimerstpri,' on the- previous day P ■' v'Mr.' Staite said that unfortunately it was the second time m the ; course of his professional career that he* had been accused of' contempt of Court. He thought hts Worship, was net justified m addressing the remarks to him which he had; made— that he would not hear him until he had. apologised, It was a hard matter when m Court for a practitioner, m his .endeavor, to have justice meted out . to '!■ preserve. an everi.temper. If he had. said anything to pffend his Worship when, m Court, he apologised. His Worship; I accept your apology, and if ip 'the pourse of the. case, I have made any remarks hurtful to your feelings, I apologise also. '""..,.'' "..''.'' The case then proceeded. Mr Warburton read the 89th Section of the '-'Lands Transfer Act; and wished to put ijn copies' pf certificates of title. 'Mr. Staite thought they had not arrived at that s|age. Having quoted Section 88 of the Resident Magistvates's, Act; he said that owing tp Mr. Halcombe's absence he cpuld not "go 'as far. into the defence as he, otherwise should have done, arid should have to rest his defence on the question of value.- " ' '■■ 7 ' ' W. Reid— vfhp objected to being sworn, was allowed to make the usual affirmation iir lieu ■th ereof— deposed that he knew the house m which defendant lived. He should say:, it was. worth about two shillings. per' week, and' it was scarcely fit for a human, being to livje'ip, - ; - JphP ! ?WlUpa~who similarly objected—

eppsed that he was m occupation of a por;on of the land described m the copy of the •ertificate of title; and defendant held a sortipn4n the centre. Defendant occupied i little hut of the value Mr. Staite objected". His friend had iroved that the value was less than £20 a .ear, and read the ,88fch Section of the .Resident Magistrates' Act. Mr. Warburton could not make out what lis learned friend was driving at. He conended that the value of the house being .inder £20, he was at liberty to-' sue m that •Jourt. Mr. Staite acknowledged that, for once m his life, he was wrong. He thought that ihe case should be adjourned for a week, to enable the required bond to be made, md sureties required. Tbe case, at the suggestion of Mr.' War'lurton/ Mr. Staite not objecting, was adjourned to the next sitting of the Palmerston Court. Davies and Price v. Bradley and Maitland. —Claim, £50 15s. for building store at Cheltenham. Mr. Madden appeared for plaintiff. After hearing evidence, judgment was given for the plaintiff, for £20 16s. Id., being the amount claimed, less £29 18s. 5d., a su m which had been paid since the issue of the summons. Elizabeth Bradley v. Richard Bowler. — Claim, £8 Bs.' 3d., for goods sold and delivered. Mr. Staite appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Madden for the- defendant. Mr. Staite said that Mr 3. Bradley had been can-ying on the business m Feilding under a deed m her own right. Mr. Madden objected to plaintiff's right to sue, she being a mrried woman. On resuming after the adjournment, Mr. Staite applied for an. adjournment of the case till next Court day. Mr. Madden agreed to this on payment of costs. Case adjourned accordingly. Elizabeth Bradley y. G. W. Foules. — Claim, £2 2s. 6d. Judgment for plaintiff, with amount and costs. Loudon v, Lockwood.— Claim £10 2s. 6d, for goods sold and delivered. It transpired that the summons had been taken out for upwards of two years, and not served until the other day. Judgment for plaintiff, for amount claimed, and costs. The Caurfc adjourned until the 15th of August,