R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 104, 10 April 1884, Page 2

R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

(Before J. Booth, Esq., R.M.) TUESDAY. SPEMIHA PAREWETA V. BINI WAIPARA. Claim £5 for detention, and for the recovery of five horses, Mr. McDougal], for the defendant, stated that (1) there was no such action as the particulars stated ; (2) that the particulars failed to show the jurisdiction on its face ; and (3) the plaint does not describe the horses mentioned in the plaint. On this his Worship struck the case out. THIS DAY. DRUNKENNESS. Sarah Williams was again brought up charged with the above, and was fined ss. with costs Gs., or 24 hours imprisonment. CIVIL CASES. DOLEMAN V. COMMON, SHELTON & CO. His Worship gave judgment in this case. He did not think there was any claim for damage, but he (the defendant) was entitled to the 4,500 bricks used, and judgment would be given for that amount, at the contract price £3 ss. per 1000 (£l4 12s. 6d), and costs £4 15s. In the case of Common, Shelton and Co, v. Doleman, which was a claim of £l6 for damages for the non-fulfilment of contract. Taking all things into cohsideration, he thought he would dismiss the application, each party paying his own costs. DEVERY V. O’DWYEB. Claim £26 16s. Gd. Mr. Kenny, for plaintiff, said in this case there were four causes of action—(l) That the plaintiff was employed to buy cattle for the defendant, for which he paid £27 10s., and has only received back £lB, therefore they claimed the balance (£9 10s.): (2) The plaintiff claims commission for buying the cattle (£1 17s. 6d.); (3) That the plaintiff on Feb. 4 hired out his dray and three horses to defendant. The dray was broken, and the damages were beyond question £9 4s. The plaintiff also claimed £6 for rent; and (4) The plaintiff claimed 15s. for goods sold ana delivered. E. Devery deposed that he sold five head of cattle to the defendant for £27 10s., of which he had only received £lB. He claimed five per cent as commission, which came to £1 3s. Defendant agreed to hire a dray and three horses for £3 a week. The dray was severely damaged, and had to be repaired—(receipt for same produced). Sold defendant a bag of maize whilst he had the team on hire. He had received no part of the amounts claimed. Mr. Finn stated that the plaintiff and defendant met in his office to come to a settlement. The plaintiff was anxious to have a settlement and made several concessions for that purpose, but the defendant would not come to any arrangement at all. John Callaghan, P. Malone, and R. Mcßretney also gave evidence to prove the claim in favor of the plaintiff. E. O’Dywer stated that lie admitted everything except the wear and tear of the dray. Mr. Kenny said in the face of the evidence given it could not be made out that the wear and tear of the dray was not in the arrangement. His Worship said he would split the amount of the claim for the wear and tear of t ie diay, as an entire horse should not have been jd in it. Judgment would, therefore, be given for the claim, less half the wear and tear of the dray, which would be £2l 17s. 6d., and costs £7. (Left sitting.)