RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1367, 11 October 1883, Page 1

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

(Before J. Booth Esq., R.M.) Tuesday. Police v. Johnston—The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of drunkenness and was lined 10s, in default of payment 24 hours imprisonment, J, D. Ormond v. Mokena.—His Wonhip said he could not grant Mr Rees' application for n nonsuit on the ground that the money was had, and received for the defendats use, He had looked over the Judge of the Native Land Court private note-book, the Assessors* book, and the Court records, and by them he found that the defendant's husband had objected to the sale, but had subsequently given his consent to refund the money. Ho would therefore decide in favor of the plaintiff, and give judgment for £25 with costs, £5 9s. Nolan v. Humphries.—Adjourned for a fortnight. P. Barrie v. Hemitotoke. —Claim £8 19s 4d for goods supplied. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for the amount and costs. P. Barrie v. Austin.—Claim £1 13s 6d for good supplied. No appearance of the defendant. Judgment for the amount and costs 19s. Richardson v. Wright.—Claim £1 10s, subscriptions, &c., for the Matawhero School. The plaintiff deposed that he was the Chairman of the Matawhero School Commi tte. Some time ago he and the rest of the Committee went about collecting for the school about July last. Each of the Committee promised to subscribe so much themselves. The defendant promised to pay £l, and the amount was put down to be collected by the committee. A meeting was called on the 19th July for each member to hand over what money he had collected, they did so with the exception of the defendant, but he then told us what he had collected and that ho would bring down the money the next morning. He brought part of the money clown, viz., £5 10s, and gave a written promise to pay the 30s on the 23rd August, at the next meeting. The reason he disputed the 10s was because he stated he paid it to Mr Colebrook on the School account, who says he has not paid it. After cross-examining the witness, the defendant stated that he had never refused to pay the amount, but he considered he had every right to withdraw his subscription, because others had been allowed to. His Worship said he considered the amount was justly owing, and would give judgment for the amount and costs 10s. Kenny and Finn v. Harries and Lincoln.— Claim x2. Judgment for amount and costi*. 7s. Jury v. Hepite Maitai-Claim £l6O on adit" honored promissory noie. Mr McDougall for the plaintiff. Judg« , meat for the amount and costa ss,