RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 407, 6 September 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Gisborne, Tuesday, September 5, 1876. (Before W. K. Nesbitt, Esq., R.M.) Horses at Large.—J. Nash and George Kilburn, were lined 5 shillings each for this offence. Similar charges against E. Woo l and others were wit hdrawn by the police, on account of Mr Wilson giving his opinion that no offence had been committed. Any person might have his horse “ at large,” and still not be commit ting an offence. The charge, ho contended, should have been more definite. Harris v. Searle.—Abusive language. Mrs Harris stated that the defendant, a lad of about 9 years, had thrown pieces of glass bottles and bricks at her, and used violent language.

By Mr Rogan. The defendant said he would crush every bone in my body, and I am in bodily fear in consequence. A charge of assault which arose out of the foregoing was heard at this stage. Mrs Harris said the defendant hit her several times on the clothes with pieces of brick and stones. Mr Haache deposed to having seen several boys throwing stoues, but could not say he saw the defendant hit the plaintiff. P. Searle deposed to there being a general melee in the street, his boys were among them and he parted them. The defendant was with him at work at the time. The defendant was put in the box, but the whole affair seemed to be of so trivial a character that the Bench dismissed the case, and fined defendant 10s for abusive language. Read v. H. Trimmer. — Claim £2l amount of promissory note dishonored, and interest thereon. Judgment for plaintiff with costs, Wilson v. Horton. —Claim £2 os 6d. Judgment for plaintiff with costs. Wilson v. G. F. Harris. — Claim £26 19s 6d. Judgment for plaintiff with costs. Hubble v. Hareone — Claim £1 2s 6d for labor performed. Judgment for plaintiff, 12s amount paid into court. Read v. Webb. — This was a. case allowed to come into court by the defendant, for the decision of the Bench on a certain point. The defendant admitted the balance due to plaintiff of £3 Is 4d, but asked the Bench to decide the question of costs. The account was rendered by plaintiff, with a request that defendant’s contra account to the 30th June, might bo made out. Defendant asked plaintiff to wait until the following morning—as ho was very busy at the time—and would check the amount and forward the balance. This he, the defendant, thought was satisfactory, and was surprised to receive a summons; he would, therefore, ask the Bench to discountenance so tyrannical a method of forcing people into Court without necessity. His worship, after long arguments by the two legal gentlemen present, said that as a matter of courtesy, the plaintiff might have acted with less unnecessary haste, but he had the power, and had used it, he (his Worship) thought arbitrarily. He would consider the point and give judgment to-morrow. North v. Pickkrsgill. — Claim £1 10s, value of a bedstead. The Bench stated that plaintiff should have sued defendant’s husband, and gave a nonsuit with costs. [Left Sitting.)