Resident Magstrate's Court. TE AROHA. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1st.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 408, 5 October 1889, Page 2

Resident Magstrate's Court. TE AROHA. TUESDAY, OCTOBER Ist.

[Before H. W. Northcroft, Esq., R.M.] Application^ for Re-hearing, Hart v. Milletfc. On last Court day. in the case- of John Hart v. Leonard Millet, claim £4. 2s for goods supplied, there was no ; appearance of defendant when- the case was called, and judgment went by default for plaintiff for the full amount claimed,, with costs 12s, total L 5 Is. j Sir Win, Wasteneys, solicitor, now appeared for defendant (who hid filed an j affidavit to the- effect that he did not lowe the money, and that his absence just 'at the time- the case was called on the last Court day was only for a few minutes to seek a witness named Day), and asked for a re-hearing of the case. i His Worship said he supposed Sir ! Wm. Wasteneys was aware plaintiff had applied for a judgment summons for payment of tho debt ' r if he was prepared to lodge with the Clerk of the Court £5 Is, tho amount "for- which judgment 'was given on lnsfc Qogj!sj[day, he; would grant 1 iilie application for, a ,r.e-hea,rmg, ,but . not otherwise."" "Applications' "lor re- dealing wei'e. o'ft§ri '< ask&di 'lot* merely to m gain iime, an^ jsomeiirne.a;? wJaen gp^U'tect the result, was r the- lv applicant cleared * ' ." - . ' - His Worship said he % v, would let the application stand over jfar/ a time.to allow Millctt^an opportunity of lodging" the money in Oourt. •*.« j ' ' >>l '"' Aften about threp quarter.? of an hdnr, Sir Wm. Wasteneys sta.ted his client wasnqt; prepared 'to 'lodg^e'move t!ian £2. '■His Yl^vjslvp Iri<?fose<J< 1 r i <?f0se<J< the application for a re-iheavinj» unless thjMvholpjimnunt' foi ! >Thich judgment had been given wwv lodged ,ih- Court ns security ; "and added, the fact thatMillolt had file/l n ,"jsot, off " wfla an admirf^ioif f t he ,Q^9^ t ' u * debt 1 , or at least a part of it. .John Tliut v. L. MilloU'f This m^. su;nrn»'MiS'frtr XWbs nrnodutof 1 ju'ljiiu-'Mfc i with -costs'" 'tfiveri "•ngHiifst i tlofendant the .proviou's Cou-t'day.' Li v ep!y <o 11'^ Wor^ln'p defendant staled ho-wa-T cook at the I'-ilace Hotel, his wagosj being £1 av.cek anil found.

He had expenses amounting "to 1 7s or 8s -I week ; washim? alone costing him 4s or 5s a weelc. He had received no money since judg men chad been given-against him, He received Ids wages -weekly ; and a week's .wages would be due to him oh.{3ntu.rdoy 'next. [ Ho was not. in a position to pay- the debt afc present, having had a number o,f oilier bills to" 'pay , lately. He had lost heavily hy the Ball, inu.fiict ho had, already paid away far ' more than he could afford in connection with it. His Worship made an order for payment of £2- per month, first payment to be made, on October 22nd, .John Williams v. Louis Petery, judgment summons, amount £1 lSs'Sd, and costs. In reply to His Worship defendant stated he had been out of work and unable to pay the debt- since judgment was given against him. He was now in work at 80s a week. Order, made to t pay £1 per month,. first pnymont, to be •made oh October 12th, cost of one witness subpeened' by plaintiff, Bs, being allowed. Jas, H, Rowe v. Augustus Come r , claim £1 16s' Id for meat supplied. Jas. H. Howe gave evidence to the .effect the amount sued for was due, and owing. The meat w,as- supplied to deifendanjb by his instructions, and delivered to him, or his mates, when working at ; the Tm, about a year and a half ago. In reply to defendant/ :• Your mates came for meat and said 1 it was to be 'cliargad to you, and I supplied them. You did not give me an order > to supply your mates with meat, bat told me verbally. In reply to His Worship : Dafendant asked me to supply meat to his males, .the meat to be left at the camp, and I jdid so^ Whea defendant's brother, Alf. j Conies, started butcheringat Te Aroha, about a year ami a half or two years ago, (defendant; fiame- to me himsejf ,and said l\e did not want me. to supply him with ajny more meat from that time, as he i9hould get it from liis brother. t „ , , | Wsvrfß|AfSs(£on of] atfdi shopman toj Jjhe ! Ui&9t'i\fifch.ess)> gave evidence, and stated he supplied hieafcUo. the defendant for himself anil mates, snnw they took away themselves," and some wag packed up the hill, and left in their cook house for them. When they stopped taking meat from his father the reason given was that dtjfendaut's brother hid started as a butcher. iUofen lant (sworn) — In reply to His ' Worship :- I was living by myself at the time, and only gave an ordor for a few pieces of the meat.. I never authorised any meat to be supplied to others and charged to we. I coul I not S'»v wiut duties I got tho moat. Mr Howe supplied me with moat from i4th to 28th May, that was all the \fleat I got from him at that timr. Alf. Comes (sworn), atate 1 that his brother, the defendant, wns living in n v» r !iaie by hims-'lf- •jibouli the ' time rri'cr rod 'to in the .bill. A long timo wa3 occupied in trying to define the pieces of. meat, defendant had actually reoeivn.l. himself With respect to a, large pieqc.of rq.is'in.? heof, he stated 'that it was hid brother Willie got that, and took home with him to i£arai>gsil)ake> where his people woie living at the time; hut he (witness) never authorisod plaintiff to put it down to his account. In reply to His Worship defendant , said he did not know who his brothoi Willie was "tuckering" with at the time referred to, but it was not with him. His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for 16s s^d and 11s costs, William Cook v. Richard Dohell, ciaim £9 for wages Defendant and his wife in this case stated plaintiff came to them last Christmas during the holidays^ and asked for permission to stay with him for a while and do odd jobs on his farm, for his tucker and lodging-; "which request was granted. Plaintiff, on the other hand, swore defendant engaged him at £1 a week and ' found.' After a considerable amount of evidence His Worship gave ju Igmenfc for | plaintiff for £5 55,. with costs lls.