The Nelson Evening Mail THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1867. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume II, Issue 300, 19 December 1867, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1867. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wednesday, December 18. (Before J. Poynter, Esq., R-M.) David Grant -was charged with committing an assault upon John Earrett, but the evidence proving that both parties were in fault, they were both ordered to enter recognisances to keep the peace for three months, themselv es in '2.01 each, and one surety respectively in 20?. The following debt cases were also heard. — H. Warren v. T. Connell. This was an action to recover 5/ 19s 4d for meat supplied to the defendant, who did not appear. Judgment by default for the amonnt with costs. B. Absolom v. Thos Hodgson. Action to recover 5l 4s Bd'for meat supplied to the defendant, who appeared by his solicitor, Mr liingdon, and admitted the debt. Judgment for 5i Ss 8d with costs. James M'Guffin v. H. Phillips. — This -was an action to recover 19/. 10s , the alleged amount of wages due to the plaintiff in the capacity of barlnan at the Mitre Hotel. Mr Pitt appeared for the plaintiff; Mr Kingdon for the deiendant. It appeared from tin plaintiff's statement that he had been induced by defendant to take the place of barman, and had remained *dth him in that capacity for 16 weeks, when he left, in consequence of a quarrel, but afterwards returned and remained with the defendant until the loth Oct. He had received Si. ss. on account of his wages, and the balance was the amount claimed. It was also proved that the defendant had said that he was giving plaintiff 30s. a week. The defendant stated that the arrangement was only a temporary one, until his family got into the hotel, and. repudiated any engagement. Tho plaintiff was always treated as a boarder, and he had. never applied to him for his board, in consequence of intercession made in his behalf by a Presbyterian minister in Auckland. Judgment for the plaintiff in. 9/. ss. and costs. S. A. Cusack v. T. M. Bryant. This was an action to recover 32/, the price of a brown filly and a heifer, which the plaintiff had depasturing on the Maitai-run, in the charge of the defendant, and which he had not seen since. It appeared that the defendant on giving up the run in March last, had advertised that all persons having stock depasturing on the run should remove them on or before the Ist April, or make arrangements for their remaining there with Mr JBurford. The plaintiff stated that he had gone several times to tbe run to take delivery of the stock in question, but could not get them . Witnesses were examined to prove that the defendant incurred no risk for stock depasturing on the run, and the defendant swore that when he left the run the filly and heifer were mustered, and no one appearing to take delivery of them, they were handed over to Mr Burford, and a'so that since the commencement of the present action he had offered the plaintiff to remit the amount paid for the keep of the animals. The Magistrate ordered that the defendant should deliver up to the plaintiff the filly and heifer in question, within 14 days from that date, or in default to pay the plaintiff 25/, and the costs of the action.