RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 51, 10 May 1873, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, Mat 8. [Before W. K. Nas bitt, Esq., R.M.] The Court has been occupied for two or three davs in investigating a charge brought by the police against a man of the name of Campbell for stealing sundry articles from Various people and stripping Mr. Skipworth's yard of linen on the night of the Sth inst. It appears that in decamping he left a pair of boots behind him which were proved as haring been stolen by him in the early part of the evening. The Magistrate said that although there was strong circumstantial evidence as to the prisoner haring stolen the linen, he did not think it sufficient to convict him; he should therefore deal with the other charge, and award him six months imprisonment with hard labor for stealing the boots. Colkbboox ▼. Mura.—Claim £2 ss. No appearance of defendant. Judgment by default. Horsfall v. Hood.—Debt £1 19s 6d. Judgment confessed. Defendant promised to pay the amount in a month. ' Horsfall v. Wi Habonga—Debt £2 —cash lent. No appearance of defendant. Judgment by default. Holloway v. Sproat.—£B 16s. —8. Hollowav, sworn, stated: I took an order from defendant, drawn by one Smith and Taylor, on Major Westrup, for the amount, which ultimately was refused payment on my presenting it in April last. —Charles Westrup, sworn, stated: The reason that the order was not honored was because it was not presented in time. He would have cashed it if it had been presented earlier.—Taylor, sworn, stated : The order was given to Sproat in payment for wages, Major Westrup having promised to honor it. The amount of the order was included in the amount drawn from Major Westrup. Case dismissed. Shiblky v. Jeffries. —Mr. Cuff for plaintiff. This was an action brought under the 88th section of the Resident Magistrate’s Act to recover posession of a certain building erected on section 32 in the Military Township at Ormond. —Thomas Shirley, sworn, stated : I am one of the original purchasers of sections in the township of Ormond. The Crown Grant* are not yet issued. I have not parted with the section No. 32 on which the building in question stands. By defendant: I did give you notice that the section and improvements were mine. I did not authorize my brother to sell the property. Mr. Cuff produced his letter-book which contained a notice to quit, sent by him as plaintiff’s agent to defendant. —The case was adjourned to a later period of the day, and ultimately settled out of Court. Kelly v. Cooper.—Adjourned case. Debt £3 2s 9d.' Settled by a reference to arbitration. Nasmith v. Langford.—£lolos for watch supplied. No appearance of defendant. Plaintiff proved his claim on oath. Judgment by default. - STbvewbow v. Langford. — Debt £3 17s. No appearance of defendant. Judgment by default. Trimmer v. Munn.—Mr. Cuff for plaintiff asked for an adjurnment in consequence of nonappearance of his client. Adjourned to next Thursday accordingly.