MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XV, Issue 172, 21 July 1880, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURT.

[Before H. E. Curtis, J. R. Dodson, and S. Kingdon, Esqs., J.J.P ] Harris v. Stone.— Action to recover £8 13s Id. This case was heard last Thursday, when judgment was given for the plaintiff, ,the defendant not being present, bat as it turned out that his absence was owing to an error in the date mentioned in the summons, it was agreed to re-hear it to-day. Mr Bunuy appeared for the plaiutiff, and Mr Fell for the defendant. ' The plaintiff claimed the re-payment of certain moneys which, he alleged, had been lent by his wife, since dead, out of his earnings, to her father, the defendant. Mr Fell, for the defence, said that Mr Stone looked upon this as an attempt on the part of his sou-in-law to extort money. When his (Sfc'one'a) wife died, his daughter Sophy, who subsequently married Harris, let him have £12 to pay for the family mourniug. There was nothiug ever said about a loan, and no demand had been made for re-payment until the summons was issued. The fact was that Harris had found out that his late wife had let her father have money, and after her death had brought forward this cock and bull story, for which there was no*foundation whatever. John Stone stated lhat his daughter, who was now dead, had been the wife of the \ plaintiff. She bad bv.«n in service previous to marriage, and had saved up some money in the Post Office Savings Bank. He had never borrowed *ny roouey from her. She had given him £10 to pay for mourning at, the time of his wife's death. He never knew that Harris knew anything about this money until the night before Sophy (Mrs Harris) died, wbeu the plaintiff asked him to help to buy mourning, as Sophy had assisted him when her mother died. A fortnight later Harris again asked him for money, which be refused, and the next thing he knew about it was the receipt of the summons. He never borrowed any money from his daughter, and never repaid her the small amounts mentioned in the bill of particulars. Louisa Stone remembered her sister ban ding^ over money to her father to . pay for mourning at the time of her mother's death. : After hearing counsel on bath! sides, the 1 Bench gave judgment for the defendant without costs, stating that they did not consider the evidence for the plaiutiff was suffi- { cient. Every v. E. W. Thomas.— Claim for £8 7s 6d, balance of wages due. Mr Bunny appeared for the defendant, who had paid £4 7a 6d into Court, which included 10s for I costs, and had lodged a set off for the balance; Plaintiff did not appear,, and Mr Bunny applied for costs. A sum of £1 Is was allow id in addition to the amount already paid in for lhat purpose. Gorria & Sou v. Wilkins. — Action to recover £14 14s for funeral expenses. Defendant admitted the claim, and offered to pay £1 a month, for which an order was made. ■ . • Ray v. Parmenter. — Action to recover £3, the value of a dog alleged to have been j killed by the defendant. Mr Bunny appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Moore for the defendant, who had paid £1 10s into Court. '. The plaintiff Bald he was standing outside Parmentor's hotel when he saw his dog kicked out, and found that its back was broken. Miss Adair, barmaid at the hotel, stated that the dog was accustomed to come there with its master. It was generally a wellbehaved dog, but was occasionally a little rude. The defence was that the dog wa9 worrying the defendant's cat, and he had kioked it out. Judgment was given for 1 the amount paid into Coutt. •