R.M.’s Court, Gisborne.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1084, 8 June 1882, Page 2

R.M.’s Court, Gisborne.

Tuesday, 6th June. [Before M. Price, Esq., R.M.] CIIAEGE OF DISOIiDEKLY CONDUCT. Ciiables PoULOiiAiN and Hiriti Mangiwha were charged with drunkenness and disorderly conduct in a licensed house, to wit the Masonic Hotel, on the sth inst. The prisoners pleaded guilty, but His Worship said he would like to hear tho circumstances in connection with the charge. Mr F. Hamlin stated that ho had been in the Masonic Holed on the evening in question. He saw the two prisoners in a room, and Poulgrain was evidently desirous of being a lover. The lady did not apparently consent. Some Natives asked him to intcefere, and he said to them they had better take her away as she was a relative of theirs. Ho said he would go himself to the police. Ho did so. Sergeant Bullen gave evidence as to arresting the prisoner. The prisoners both declined to ask any questions. His Worship reprimanded the male prisoner and said his conduct had been such as to make it impossible for him to do other than pass a sentence of 11 days’ imprisonment, without tho option of a flue. The Native woman ho would fine 10s and costs, or in default 2-1 hour’s incarceration. Civil Business. Bank of New South Wales v. R. ITurrey.—This many-times-adjonrnod case was furl her adjourned until the Hth August. Messrs Ward and Brassey appeared for tho parties respectively. Bourke and Hyde v. J. 11. Scott and others.—Claim t C6 10s for work and labor done on the Makaraka racecourse. Mr Finn for tho plaintiffs, and Mr Brassey for the defendants.— The claim was brought in consequence of an alleged agreement having been made by the defendants with the plaintiffs for clearing and fencing.— The defendants proved that they had made no such agreement, and that although the plaintiffs had worked on tho job, or a portion of if, they had done so after being distinctly told they would not be paid. —Judgment for defendants with costs £3 Bs. W. Adair v. DeVerney.—Claim £2, for goods supplied. There was no appearance of the defendant, and judgment was given for plaintiff with costs. T. McAneny v. G. Bougen.—Claim £2 4s IJd for wages. The sum of four shillings and a penny halfpenny had been paid into Court. Dlr Ward appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Brassey for the defendant.—The disputed sum of two pounds was alleged by Bougen to have been paid to McAneny. This tiio latter denied, but Robert Austin gave uncontestiblo evidence as to the amount having been given by him to Bougen and by Bougen to McAneny. His Worship in giving a verdict for tho defendant: said that it was evident McAneny had committed perjury, and that it should bo tho duty of the police or someone else to see further into tho matter. This was all the business. A warrant was issued for McAneny’s apprehension on a charge of perjury.