Patea R.M. Court.

Patea Mail, 23 December 1881, Page 3

Patea R.M. Court.

Friday, before C. A. Wray, R.M. Houguez v. Catherine Sparks.—This was a charge of using obscene language on the 17th. Complainant said he was called a “liar” and a “d—d rogue,” and accused of refusing money justly due to defendant’s husband. Subsequently she went for him with a stick. Mr McKenna, in whose shop the bad language was used, deposed that the adjective coupled with “ rogue ” was only “old.” The defendant having given her version of the affair, the case was dismissed as “ paltry,” Taplin v. Moore.—Judgment summons for £6 15s 6d. The R.M. pointed out that plaintiff must prove that defendant had had enough money to pay, Mr Taplin swore that defendant had offered to pay in a fortnight. The Bench, noticing that defendant was not present, made an order for payment in a fortnight, or one month’s imprisonment.

Thomas Irwin v. Edward Bateup.— This was a claim for £lO 13s, for board and lodging. Mr Barton appeared for plaintiff and Mr Hamerton for defendant. It appeared that Irwin quarreled with Bateup and turned him out on a Monday and then claimed payment until the following Saturday. Besides that, money was due from Irwin for chimneys built and other things. The case was of a rather complicated and withal trivial character. The “ book ” produced by Irwin was totally unintelligible both to his own lawyer and Mr Hamerton, and the Court gradually got into a pleasant conversational discussion about “ totting up ” “ offsets ” “ Debtor and creditor side ” and so on. It was said that Bateup charged himself 18s too little some months ago, and Irwin only found it out lately. Besides this, Bateup claimed for a chimney and Irwin said that reckoned against washing. It seemed that Bateup used to do Irwin’s bookkeeping —and do it very ill. From a mass of contradictory statements the R.M. deduced the conclusion that the case ought never to have been brought into Court. Judgment for £6 17s, without costs.