RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 942, 11 May 1881, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, GISBORNE.

Tuesday, May 10th, 1881. [Before M. Price, Esq., R.M.] ASSAULT. Taeba Outakou was charged with assaulting one Mahaka, on the 9th instant. Mr. Brassey appeared for the defence. Sergeant Bullen detailed the circumstances from which it appeared that there had been a Maori squabble, and that the accused had kicked, and he believed struck the Native Mahaka. He ran him in. The defendant said that the reason he went to the. scene of the trouble was because he heard that his Uncle’s leg had been broken by Mahaka. He only touched him with his foot. Case dismissed. S. DE COSTA V. CAMPBELL. This was a judgment summons for the recovery of £ll 3s. Order made to pay 10s per week, or in default 3 weeks’ imprisonment. BROMLEY Y. Mc'kAY TEAT J& CO. Claim £26 7s (Id, for horso hire &c. Mr. Rees appeared for plain t-if, and Mr. Brassey for Mr. Irvine the only member of the firm who had been summoned. The plaintiff was assignee of E. V. Luttrell’s estate, and sued for the recovery of a debt which was due to the estate. Mr. Brassey explained that the debt was not a partnership one, but was incurred by Mr. Duncan McKay privately. Mr. McKay said that the debt was incurred by the firm. Judgment was given for plaintiff with costs. TUTCHEN V. M*KAY. Claim, £6 10s, for trespass of cattle and certain damages. Mr Nolan for plaintiff, and Mr Turton for defendant. The evidence showed that the fence was in a bad state, and the Bench gave judgment for 20s and costs of Court. HEPBURN V. PATORAMU. This was a claim, £8 10s, for the wrongful branding and detention of a filly claimed by the plaiirtiff. There was also a cross action for wrongful possession by Hepburn. Mr Turton for Mr Hepburn, and Mr Rees for Patoramu. It was clearly proven that the filly was the property of Mr Hepburn, and that the native had branded it with his own brand. Judgment was given for the full amount, £8 10s, and costs £9 6s. CLARKE V. NASMITH. Claim £9 5s for money alleged to have been detained. Mr Turton appeared for the defendant. The plaintiff appeared in the witness box in a highly obfuscated condition, and could not be got to answer any questions straightforwardly. After giving his evidence, if it may be so termed, he was ordered to stand down, but narrowly escaped falling down. Air Nasmith explained how certain money which he had held for Clarke had been expended. Evidence was also given by James King, J. G. Henderson, and T. J. Dickson corroborative of Mr Nasmith’s statements. Judgment for defendant with costs.

AI‘LEAN V. GRUNER. Claim £ll. This was an action by the plaintiff as trustee in A. F. Hardy’s estate to obtain the above sum, the balance of the sale of certain sheep seized under a distress warrant. Air Turton appeared for Air Al'Lcan and Air Rees for the bailiff. It appeared that Air APLean as trustee, and the Bank of New Zealand as mortgagees both claimed, and the present action was brought to obtain the decision of the Bench as to whom the defendant should pay the money. Air Turton argued that all available property, after a filing in bankruptcy, became vested in the trustee There was no claim before the Court by the Bank of New Zealand, and, therefore, its claim could not be recog nised. Air Rees replied. Air. Ward having been sworn, said that a case was pending in the Supreme Court, and His Worship adjourned the hearing for one month. read’s Trustees v. fitzgkrald and brown. Claim £2O for illegally impounding cattle from that portion of property situate at AVaerenga-a-hika and known as the Island. Air. Rees for plaintiffs, and Air. Brassey for defendants A good deal of evidence was taken as to the right the Trustees possessed in regard to this particular spot. Wi Haronga gave very reluctant evidence, and it was only when threatened with the punishment the Court had power to inflict, that anything like a straight answer could be obtained. He however admitted that he had given the two defendants permission to use his name, when impounding the cattle. Air. Brassey raised the question of the power the Court had to adjudicate in the matter of ownership of the land being disputed, as Wi Haronga was one of the grantees in the block. His Worship said he had, in that case, no jurisdiction, and the case was dismissed.