RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 311, 29 September 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Gisbohnb, Tuesday, September 28,1875. Before W. K. Nesbitt, Esq., R.M;f and Andbew Gbaham, Esq., J.P. . E Jones was fined 10s for allowing his horse to wimley in P. B. HigSway Boabd “""Lachlan. Mr. W. W. Wifson appeared for the pla c“ £ s(j -SaZAH Ti . A. F. Hardy, Chairman of the Board, sworn, stated : The amount claimed is for breach of contract, and is now due to-the Board. The defendant did not appear. Judgment for plaintiffs with costs. Boylap-Sbos. '«r. •—jGlaim 30s psoseft*e 1 -w>ne^-ieHJ , o»«rty Bay. Defendant admitted the claim, but said he thought the Government would pay the amount. It was arranged for the defendant to pay the money in two weeks. . „ Cbaig v, Steele. . ! Mr. Rogan for plaintiff; Mr. Wilson for defendant. Claim brought to reccVel > ,eer|aih horse £f - ’its valde; i j-t’FX-A A<2 Plaintiff, sworn stated: I bought the Sorse in question at a pound sale (brand escribed). I paid £2 iOs for it, (receipt E reduced). Mr. Steggall acted as poundeeper. I took the horse away,, and put my own brand on it ’(brand di-fineated Uy' witness). Defendant took ■ ffiii hlare J away as he had some arrangefnent’ 'td make with Mr. Steggall. Cross-examined by Mr. Wilson: I sold the horse to Mr.‘ Poulgraiii’s, soli, and her took possession of it. There were other brands besides my own on it. , One like W, another like-.throe leopards. R. Poulgrain was put into the witness box, but our reporter failed to hear a single complete sentence of his evidence, from the inconvenient position of the renqrters’ table- , ' Mr. Wilson for the defehce'mived tor a nonsuit andarguedethattheprovisions of the Impounding with as far as giving notice is concerned. Neither is there any evidence Athiit a prpper order fop jthe sale by toe - Ppiindkeeper 6btaihefi,from jijjgtsfiipe of toe Peace ; nor of toe hour at which the sale took place; nor that the description of the animal had been duly posted up in some conspicuous place ; nor that the pound-keeper had made proper entry in a book kept Top that purpose.,. The pound was not a market overt, and gave the purchaser no more guarantee than at any ordinary sale. Mr. Rogan said it‘ was not incumbent on him to prove the compliance of the provisions of the Act in this case. The Court was to assume that toe formajities, of law had been complied with f tlfelearned gentleman quoted authorities in support of hts argument and said, it was the duty of his friend to prove that the law had not been complied with. < Mr. Wilson, in reply, contended that as the Provincial .ordinances were nothing more than bye-laws; the public were-not held to be presumably acquainted with them, consequently he held to the view that his leatoetffriend ivas bound to ‘ that toe terms they expressed had been duly complied with. i. The Bench recorded a nonsuit on the .ground that it was the duty of the plaintiff to prove a compliance with toe provisions of tofe Impounding Adtr.-.<i ” Read v. Wi Haronga.

Judgment summons. Claim •£B;’.' , itMr. Wilson for plaintiff. The defendant on examination said he thought he had £5O in the bank. He was an owner in several blocks of land, but he did not receive rents ’on all of them. Ultimately he acknowledged to being able to pay the amount, and the Court gave judgment for payment to be made in one week, with costs ; or, in default, defendant to be imprisoned for one month.

Wvlljb v. 6v»f,., f ~ ■ irft pleMfß oiaiim, ffiST had W t l l £.-4iaP u te to Bjg- . the had Affrr -hearing Court decided to suspend judgment, defendant undertaking to give\gcrfrity for amount claimed pending the resultof a cross action for professional, services JHBdered, about L.td 1> fisohght by ’’ttgaitist plaintiff in"thi SupretHßmßburt.““ Judgment accordingly. Holfobb v. Bowman. ~S.Z Claim £3 2s bd for moiety of cost of . Ehiintiff, sworn, stated that a verbal jagreemeßt_had-heenjn!Mie.betwgen_him-_ self and defendant by which he (defenwsax'HOtirot Judgment for plaintiff. Maegoliouth v. Cuff.

'■ “Claim 7s 2d, for Briber's and other professional services rendered. ~ .This ,cjisc before the Bench •tooently, at Napier; and was adjourned to allow defendant to have his evidence taken in Gisborne. x?«rrw r »•»( Joshua Cuff, sworn, stales*: account annexed to the 'summons—the last I received from Mx-ACpixoliouto—-he has madqgfrhiaous JdUtdrgJl amounting to £2l 4s lOd, (items enumerated). It was agreedjljetwqim us that an all roupy'jfcfe/ ti fSst Wisfto be charged on stamping transactions. Plaintiff now charges ma-Ws each. I put in a letter, datfd Junp ? 24th, received from Mr. Margoliouth corroborating this agreement (letter read). All the evercharges of 5s aeagijl as shewn in the account marked B, occurred prior to toe receipt of that letter, and as I had charged my clients in many cases, and received the money, I was unable to debit them as requested to do by plaintiff in the said letter. Defendant then explained with reference to certain other charges of incorrectness, in detail, showing that, in many instances, charges were made for work done for persons who were not his (defendant's) clients, and continued : From the commencement of my with Mr. Margoliouth the accounts between us have invariably been incorrect. I requested him to send in an account from the beginning, and this is is the one t to which I now demur. Plainiiff Iliis<iotigiß& meAredit for £4 on 7th January 1874 andon Febuary 18th£3. 11 hafe also paid paUs Mr hi# «cceiMit for ( Oil jlmres Aj>ayJ»lsof (bill of costs amounting tb £z llsod against him. If these items I have enumerated are struck out of the account and credits allowed, jvould owe me a Thomas James North, who was in Mr. Cuff’s employ during the currency of the jjgqountsjnquestion, was examined at some ierigtli in support of the objections raised by the defendant.