RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 1, 27 October 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.—GISBORNE.

(Before J. Booth Esq., R.M.)

Yes cbrday, Police v Habold Covbtney. There was no appearance of defendant who was charged with drunkenness. Joined 5s in default 24 hours imprisonment. Chu teNshn v Feed Kicharb. Defendant J was charged on the plaintiff’s sun6y odier articles at Pakinkiri about 6 weeks back. The accused pleaded jiot guilty, In reply to His Worship the accused said he would elect to E ve the case tried by that vuurt, instead of uy a jury. After considerable evidence had been taken His Worship adjourned the case. Brassey & Fraser v Peters. Mr Brassey said last week he had asked to have this case adjourned, and as he hud heard further a,out it he would again ask to have it adjourned for a fortnight, he would then press to have the case tried, "mple time would be given fo» arrangements to be made. DeCosta v E. Harris. Adjo.-ned till the 30th instant, on plaintiff’s application. Parnell and Boylan v. R. Finlay. Claim fo • goods supplied. No appearance of defend-nt. Judgment for the full amount claimed, and costs. J. & A. Davis v. 0. Goldsmith. Claim on judgment summons for £32 7> fid for goods. Mr Bras ey, for plaintiffs, said he would ask the Court to mal.e o» j an order for the immediate payment of t J amount, though the defendant h .1 sigi ed a declaration of insolvency, bee e wh n the judgment summons ws 00.-ined, on that day the defendant paid r way £3O to another storekeeper, and he would show that the amount ought to be paid. A. D: vis g've ev’t'ence to the effect that the defendant had frequently made promises to piy the amount, and that on the day he obtained the judgment summons the defendant paid away about £3C. Bis Worship said hr.t he did not think he could m Jce an order, as the defendant had filed a declaration of insolvency. Mr Brassey said that that was a matter of opinion. He considered he was justly entitled to a verdict. His Worship said he would take time to consider the matter, and would therefore ad journ the case till 2 o’c’ock. On resuming at 2 o’clock, Tlis Worship said he had carefully considered tho matter, and had come to the conclusion that he could not make an Older for immediate payment, as all the defendant’s monies would now have to be handed over to the creditor’s trustee.

C. Smith & Co. v. A. Gillies. Claim on Judgment summons fur £8 Gj. No appearance of defendant. Mr Kenny for plaintiffs, said he would ask the Court to make an order for immediate payment as he would be able to show that the defendant acted fraudulently in tho matter.

C. Smith deposed : Defendant put a horst in the auction sale, No cne bought it. He asked me to buy it, which I did, He then asked me to let him ride home on it, which I did, aud he has never returned it. I have made repeated applications for it. An order was made to the effect that the

amount be paid forthwith, in default of pay* ment, 9 day’s imprisonment. Katarina Kahvtia v A. McDonald, Mr Kenny who appeared on behalf of defendant applied that the case might adjourned until Mr McDonald's return Auckland. He had only been partially in*'*" structed in the case when the defendant left. He had received a telegram from Mr McDonald, Hid from it he (McDonald) evidently did i.oo understand the case, He would therefor* apply for a further adjourn* ment. Mr DeLatour on behalf of the plalntifnnd not object to the adjournment, if hie learned friend Intended to defend the action; From what he could understand, there was a third party in the matter, who intended to carry on the action, but now the said third party, refused to do so. Mr Kenny said he had not received in* structions to defend the action, all he had to do was to watch Mr McDonald’s interest. There was a third party who was to proceed with the action, but who now refused to do so. His Worship said he would adjourrtMta case for one week.