RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume II, Issue 106, 19 November 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GISBORNE.

Thursday, November 13. [Before W. K. Nesbitt, Esq., B.M.] Dalziell r. Parnell—£4 10s.; and Parnell v. Dalziell— £l4. This was a claim and counter claim for the settlement of the purchase of a sewing machine. It appeared that Mr. Dalziell

bought a sewing machine from Mr. Parnell for £l4, giving a smaller machine in part payment, for which he was allowed a rebate of £l. Delivery was given, but objection having been taken by Mr. Dalziell on account of the needles furnished not fitting it, the machine was returned with the tacit consent of both parties. Mr. Parnell, however, claimed £1 for work done to the bartered article, and refused to return it at par, especially as he found the original machine had been damaged. Dalziell thereupon sues Parnell for £4 10s., or the restitution of the small machine given in part payment. The alleged damage to the machine while in the custody of the plaintiff, was the basis of the defence set up by defendant for refusing to take the machine back at all, and he stated in evidence that he would have cancelled the sale if no detriment to the property had occurred since the purchase. Much conflict ing evidence was adduced, the weight of which was against the defendant, inasmuch as his own testimony was unsupported. He stated emphatically on oath that the machine left his store in perfect order, while the plaintiff was equally decided that it was returned in the same state as he received it. After a patient endeavour on the part of the Resident Magistrate to get the matter settled out of Court, the cases were adjourned to next Thursday, for further evidence, which Mr. Paruell said he could furnish.

Head v. Paora Kawenga and others.— This case was brought before the bench to compel the defendants to show the nature of their claim to £3O, as damages alleged to be sustained by them, by reason of plaintiff’s cattle trespassing on their cultivation, and which cattle were impounded by them in due course. The evidence adduced went to show that the fence was an insecure one, and that the damages were excessive inasmuch ns the whole of the cultivations were not worth the amount claimed. Judgment was accordingly entered for plaintiff. Parnell v. Sproat.-—De\A, £8 12s. 6d. Judgment for plaintiff with costs. Saturday 15. The Bench sat nt 4.30. p.m., to day to hear a complaint made on oath by James Meldrum against Edwin Hood for feloniously and fraudulently embezzling monies collected by him as Collector of the Education Rates. Mr. Hood said, in answer to the Bench, that he could account for the monies collected if he had a reasonable time allowed him, but he hod lost a large sum from his pocket while swimming his horse across the river.—Remanded to Tuesday. Tuesday 18. The information against Edwin Hood was withdrawn for the present, consequent on receipt of a telegram from the Provincial Government that the books of the Collector are to be audited and the result communicated to the sureties— Messrs. Thelwall and Meldrum—and to the Provincial Secretary. The deficit shown by the audit is £6B ss.