RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume II, Issue 186, 11 July 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Gisbobnb, Fbiday, 10th July. (Before W. K. Nesbitt, Esq., R.M.; and J. W. Johnson, Ijpq., J.P.] BEAD V. DEMPSEY. Claim for two casks tallow. The evidence in this case was taken at the hearing on the 3rd inst., and fhe Court gave judgment for plaintiff, £5 16s lOd, with costs, the casks with contents to be returned to defendant. POSTER V. HARNETT. Mr. Wilson for plaintiff ; Mr. Cuff for defendant. Claim, £7 7s, rent of Music Hall. Defendant pleaded not indebted. T. W. Porter, sworn, states—Defendant had admitted his liability and the correctness of the account, but requested a month to pay it in. By Mr. Cuff —Defendant said it was hard that he should ha ve to pay this account, as others—members of the Quadrille Assembly No. 2 —were Liable as well as himself. B. J. Hartnett, sworn, states—l was no party to leasing the Hall from Capt. Porter, I was merely asked to collect the subscriptions, which I hat e not succeeded in doing. By Mr. Wilson —I was one of the persons occupying the Hall during the Assembly. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs. CUBTIS V. NASMITH. Claim £5 damages for trespass on plaintiff’s ground with guns. Tiopira Korhe, sworn, states : I saw defendant shooting birds on Curtis’s run. I told him Mr. Curtis was very angry at the shooting. I spoke in Maori. They did not leave. B. J. Hartnett deposed that the party were merely shooting Kakas, and Were not warned by any one to leave the ground. M. Nasmith and G. Rigg gave evidence which conflicted soinewliat with previous witness as to the warning ; the Court considered Mr. Curtis had a right to establish his claim to protect his property and as this is the first case of the kind which has occurred, judgment was given for Is with costs. . CURTIJ V. HARTNETT. This case was laid on lhe sa . e grounds as the last. Judgment Is and costs. DOLEMAN V. WI MAKI. Claim. £l5, value of a horse illegally detained. Several witnesses were examined, proving the identity of the .horse, and the Court was quite satisfied of the sale on the receipt given by defendant's brother, although he protested that the horse sold did not agree with the brand described in the sale note. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs. The amount te be reduced to Is on delivery of the horse to plaintiff.