MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XIII, Issue 97, 24 April 1878, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURT.

[Before C. Humtek Bhown, Esq., and the Hon. N. Edwaeos, J.J.P.] J. Harley v. Mercer. — Action to recover £15 14s lOd, for ginger beer. The sum of £6 Is was paid into Court, and a receipt produced for the balance. Mr Acton Adams appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Bunny for the defendant. The evidence, which was very lengthy, was to the effect that the plaintiff presented to Mrs Mercer an account for £9 13s lOd when, as Mrs Mercer Baid, she put down £8 14s on the table saying that she would keep the rest as a Christmas box, and she got a receipt for the full amount from the plaintiff. There then appeared to have been a row between Harley and Mr and Mrs Mercer. Plaintiff's version was that when he presented the account Mrs Mercer said she would go for the money. He then receipted the bill, when she returned with a cheque for £6 odd and some silver, saying that he had promised her a dress. He declined to take the amount offered, saying that £3 was too much to allow out of a bill for £9. He ultimately went away, taking neither the money nor the receipt. Mr Bunny, for the defendant, apologised for the condition of his client, who was in too advaucsd a stage of intoxication to give evidence, and asked for an adjournment. This was refused, and counsel having addressed the Bench, judgment was given for the plaintiff for the amount claimed and costs. Kitching v. Blick. — Action to recover £10, the value of a retriever dog shot by the defendant. Mr Bunny appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Pitt for the defendant. Evidence having been given that the dog was shot while in the act of worrying sheep on the defendant's land, judgment Jwas gfven for the defendant with costs, Jackson v. Hooker. — Action to recover £1 6s 3d for the Family Herald. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed and costs. John Hogg v. D. Whiting.— The defendant wag accused of using insulting language on Sunday last to the complainant, who asked that he might he bound over to keep the peace. Mr Bunny appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Pitt for the defendant. Prom the evidence it appeared that some exceedingly choice language had been used on both sides, and fche Bench regarding the affair as a neighbors' quarrel decided to dismiss the case, each party to pay his own costs. Hogg's costs are £1 2s 6d, and Whiting's £1 3s 6d, and the whole case arose out of a misunderstanding about a fowl.