RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.—GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 9, 15 November 1883, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.—GISBORNE.

(Before J, Booth Esq., R.M.) TUESDAY, Alfred Lake, aged 15, was brought up and pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing the sum of 30s, the property of Robert Booth, of Gisborne. Mr Nolan, who appeared for the prisoner, said this, was the boy’s first offence. The boy had left his parents, who were respect* able people in Auckland, and who would be glad if he could be sent back to them, He would ask His Worship to deal as leniently as possible with the prisoner, I His Worship spoke to the youthful delinquent in severe terms, setting forth the seriousness of his crime and warning him as to its ultimate results. Mr Roes said the boy had been in his employ for some tinle and conducted Himself very well at first. If the boy, was let off this time he would again take him back, He would suggest that His Worship should defer judgment for three months, and see how the lad conducted himself, After the Court had again severely admonished the prisoner, who promised reformation, he waa set at liberty, to come up for judgment when called upon, Nolan v. Humphries—On the application of Mr Brassey this case was adjourned until the 20th instant,

Hautapu v. Reeves—Adjourned to Tologa Bay, Common, Shelton & Co. v, Arona— Enlarged, Dawson v, Francis.—Mr Turton, who appeared for Mr Francis, put in an affidavit from his client, stating that he was not the defendant mentioned in the summons. It was clearly a case of mistaken identity. There were two brothers and the wrong one had been served, Mr Gruner said he only knew the one he had served, who had acknowledged the debt when first served, but some time afterwards returned the summons, stating that he was not the man, This was after a good deal of consideration on his part. The plaintiff said the Francis who had been served was the one for whom he had done the work, and the one mentioned in the summons.

A letter was here put in by plaintiff, from the Francis who owed the money, the signature of which, when compared with the signature of the affidavit, were pronounced to be identical, both by the Court and counsel. Mr Turton said if the affidavit was not true the defendant had been guilty of perjury. The documents were impounded and the case adjourned, for the attendance of the two brothers, until Friday next, Downes v. Wi Fere.—Claim £2O on promissory note. Mr Turton for plaintiff, and Mr Rees for defendant, asked for a dismissal of the case,

Mr Turton acknowledged that no one could sue on the document, but it was a question as to whether Hia Worship would not, in his equitable jurisdiction, give a verdict for the amount. The defendant had paid part, and had promised to pay the remainder.

His Worship did not sea how he could deal with the case. It would be dismissed with costs amounting to £3 9s. Greenwood v. Mullooly—Claim £4O on a judgment summons. Mr Rees for plaintiff and Mr Finn for defendant.

Mr Finn submitted that no order could be made as the defendant resided beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, Another matter which vitiated the present proceedings was that the defendant had not been paid any travelling expenses. His Worship said that as the summons had been served out of the district he could not make an order.

Mr Rees formally asked leave to issue a judgment summons, which was granted. W. Cooper v. Herewai and another— Claim £lOO on a judgment summons, Mr Kenny for plaintiff, and Mr Rees for the defendant. After the Court had heaid arguments on each side, the decision was reserved until Friday. C. D, Berry v. S. P, P, Company—This was a claim for £94 10a, being the contract price for removing certain machinery from the wharf to the Company’s derrick, and performing other sundry work, A set-off tor £34 was filed by the Company, being the penalty for 34 days overtime at £1 per day, in accordance with penalty clause in contract. The plaintiff denied that the delay had been occasioned by any negligence on his part, but was the result of the ComH’s own actions, Judgment deferred Friday, WEDNESDAY, Joseph Palmer v. E. Gruner—Claim £3 19s fid, balance of account for work done. Mr Kenny appeared for defendant, who called several witnesses to prove that the work was not properly done. Judgment was therefore given for the defendant with witnesses expenses 10s, and with costs of Court, Is.