RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Before H. Kenrick, Esq, R. M. Tuesday, January 19. 1886.

Te Aroha News, Volume III, Issue 138, 23 January 1886, Page 7

RESIDENT MA GI STR A TE' S COURT. Before H. Kenrick, Esq, R. M. Tuesday, January 19. 1886.

G. R. Rogers v. .M. Apjilebiv : As*'tult cm?*'. No ti[j}'O«ranff «f eithoi party ; case struck out* • Jessie Holtby v. Win. HoUby i De- ; fendant was charged on the information 1 of his wife (.1 s^ii* Uollby), with abs.ui.t. on the inonimg of ISimday l.tst, Jan. 17th) at Waitoa. Sergeant Emerpnn stated that on Sunday morning- last Ml* Ross, a neigh boitr of defendant's on account of the row at the house and the vvny defendant had bean treitiny his wife, came to IV A roll a nud represented the matter to the Police. I went out an I found the woman greatly upset by the treatment she had received. Jessie Hoi thy, sworn, in reply to Sergeant Emerson ; Am the wife of Win. Holtby, and residing at Wm'toa,. On the day of the assault as soon as I got up my husband caught me l»y the back of the neck and threw me against the wall, and also threw a bucket of water over me, beat me with a dish, and threatened he would tie me down in the house. Mr and Mrs Boss, who live close by, j came to my assistance ; this was between 9 and 10 a.m., and 1 went up to their house. Jt was at my request Mr Koss reported the matter to the Police, i My husband illtreated me about six : weeks before whilst we wore living at Mr Seddon's, when he caught me by the neck and threw me outside the house. I hare given my husband no provocation for his conduct 5 have been living away from him since this last assault, being afraid to go back 5 am afraid he will repeat his conduce. Witness, in reply to her hasband^ admitted calling him a liar prior to the assault, because he charged bet with stealing something, which she replied was a lie. Hugh Ross* sworn, in reply to Sergeant Etnersoh 1 I reside at Waitoa* Remember Sunday morning last* Holtby and wife live quite near me» I did not hear a disturbance that morning being: inside my hoU.se reading but after it wa.>« over, a neighbour came to me and my wife and asked us to go to the house which we did \ before leaching the house we heard Mrs Holtby crying very bitterly, we went to lift her uj , when she fainted away. We brought, her up to our house. The neighbours Ind been complaining for eight or ten days of the manner in which the mm ha 1 been treating his wife* Samuel Seddonv sworn> in reply to Sergeant Emerson i Reside at VVaitoa. Accused art'! his wife were in my employ for about ten weeks prior to New Year's Day. They left of their own fioe wilL 111 various ways whilst with me I was uu lev the impression defendant did not treat his wife well, and one of my men told me Holtby used violence 10 wards hi-> wife In defence Win. Holtby sail : I admit that I lost ;uy tamper in thr< wing w icer o\ei tuy wife, but deny assaulting h.-r with a tin dish. I have not bin d< ted iwr going home; am willing to do :ill I can to war. Is giving her :i sepa j r.ite subsistence if site >\ ishes to go home; our tempeis are too much alike. Defendant was ordered to enter into his own leco^uizanec in tue stlm o£ £20 to keep tue peace for 12 months, and to | pay 25s costs.

Civil Cases. \V, Wilson v. J. Mclntosh t Ad joMrtiP"! oa^r-i Claim £7 18s IP, ba laneu due on horse, sa Idle, bndle, an I « nidi '-cloth sold (lefen iant, £b In easli was rt-'i'i'vad at the time ot delivery. Juil^ni nt tor £7 18s 6 l> and costa £1 5s M. TavNtr v. G. Gapefe : Adjourned c;<se, Claim £1 5s for goods. Ca«p aiijounifd on the application ot plaintiff to,- one month. Jo.hu.i CnlT v, P. T. J.maen : Claim £2 bs -Id for j»rofessi(Mial services. This case had been promusly adjourned in order that Mr Cuif's evidence nii^ht be taken at Mauaia* This evidrnce now produced statnd that the amount sued Cor (£2 8s 4d) Was justly due fol' professional services rendered ; that defendant had acknowledged the debt, and frequently promised to pay it, and that the services rendered were in the ordinary way and not on commission. P. T» Jatisen, sworn, stated 1 That the agreement he entered into with Mr Cuff vtus to undertake a case for him, at JO per cent remuneration on amount recovered. J. F. Cocks, sworn, stated : Mr Cutf had entered into a similar arrangement with him to collect accounts at a commission of 10 per cent professional services included, and did so collect accounts for him. Judgment fof amount, with costs 18s. Defendant applied for time. Order made to be paid lOVfwjr week. P. Kelly v. l%os. McCaul i Claim £5 12s 2d wagesftiue for labour. Adjourned ou the application of plaintiff tilt next Court day. Thos. Wood v. Chas- Tonge j Claim £8 12s for 37 wet Us' rent of a UoUse at 6i per week, less £2 10s paid on account. Tbos. Wood, sworn : Stated he had cold the house to defendant fui* £'22 103, but defendant having 1 failed f o complete the purchase, became a teiuut ufc 6s per week. Defendant on one occasion gave him £2 10a to keep for hiio, and afterwards authorised him to place it ay.iinst his rent account. Chas. A. Tonge, sworn i Bonghr tl.e house for £22 10S \ paid £2 iOa deposit when plaintiff gave me possession, tho

l> dance was f<> be paid as soon ns possible, but n<> ti"ie was specified. On Oct" ! »er 7 tli T jiutlioiioed Mi> Tonsje to pay * < i , balance (£-0), and i;ei a Iran*, fer oi tie [i'Yi|K'rt^ on my be talf. Mv> Ton.ii- 1 , sworn : When we went into tie lion^e I un-lorstootl from my hushed ho lnd bought it from Mr Wiwi '-•, anil p'il liini a deposit same ume> wa.^ in March htdt. Ju October, at my Itusband^s request, I offered plaintiff the balance £20, viz., £5, and tli • balance, £15, same awning, which he declined to take, saying 1 the property was more valuable now, and he would not take £40 for it, and hegatfe me abill for lent. His Worship, in delivering judgment, said he thought from the evidence Mr ! Wood's must have misunderstood the reason defendant gave him the £2 10s, and he believed it was paid as a deposit at the time the bargain was made" for the house ; but it was quite clear defendant had failed in completing that bargain, and had been notified he would have to pay rent. Rent would be allowed from the 9th October, being the date last mentioned hi evidence, up to which time the sale would still have been completed on payment of the £20. Judgment for £4 4s, £2 10s the amount of deposit bahig allowed off the account furnished by plaintiff. Costs ils. H. H. Dix v. Chas. Balcke : Claim £3 value of watch detained. Bill produced showing defendant had paid a Thames watchmaker 10s for repairs to the watch, 2s 6d baing charged by defendant as commission. No agreement was made as to what repairs or charge was to be made. H. H. Dix, sworn ; Showed defendant the watch, stating it did not keep grod time,. Defendant looked the watch over and said jfc only wanted cWnihg, which would cost ss. I then took it off and asked hira to have it cleaned for me. His Worship disallowed the 2s 6d charged by defendant as commission. Order made for watch to be tfiven up on payment of 6s 6d sWvn to be due ; ! plaintiff having done other work for defendant. Plaintiff to pay costs of Court ' 6s. I W. Wilson Y. H. H. Dix t Claim £9 value of goods detained Wk Wilson-, sworn : The goods mentoined, viz., 2 sewing machines, a time piece, etc., "were given to defendant to repair* "they have never been returned, and I cannot get them back finished or unfinidhed. Very voluminous evidence was produced. The defence generally was that the goods specified were given as an equivalent for the paintiftggof a buggy belonging to plaintiff ; but plaintiff afterwards broke the contract and had the ■ buggy painted by another party. ! Plaintiff was nonsuited with costs) via., costs of Court 9s, and sight witnesses at Bs, £1 12s. i