RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, TE AROHA.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 435, 8 January 1890, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, TE AROHA.

TUESDAY, JANUARY 7th

(Before 11. W. Northcroft, Esq.. R.M.) J. A. Cochrane v. Jas, Parr, claim £2 9s 4d, balance of account for goods supplied. Judgment for £2 9s 4d, and costs 12s. J. Williams v. L. Petery. Judgment summons for £2 15s Bd. Plaintiff staled that defendant told him he had got work from Mr Johnson at Thames; in connection with ihe erection of an aerial tramway there, which would give him employment for six months at least. Defendant had gone to Thames to t his work. In reply to His Worship pLrnl'ff said he had not proof rosiave to produce to the Court that defendant was in regular work ; but if the case was adjourned he would take steps to procure same. Adjourned till next Court dav, January 21st. W, S. Collins v. Tlios. McPike. Judgment summons £2 Is sd, for goods supplied. Defendant stated he wag out of work and could make no offer at present. Adjourned to March 4th. W. S. Collins v. F. Booth, Judgment summons, £2 8s 7d. Defendant in this case stated he bad only received £5 since 25th October last and could make no offer. He was, howeve'-, expecting some money out from Home, which might come bv any mail. When he received it he would pay the debt. He had no propeity. The house he lived in and the furniture were his wife’s property, and belonged to her before lie married. Adjourned to Mai eh 4 th.

Geo. Giron v. Wm. Holden. Judgment summons for £lO 14s (balance due on sals of two cows by plaintiff to defendant,with costs from time to time). Defendant stated he only got three day’s work a week at five shillings per day, and was no{, in a position to make apy offer, as lie had no properly. He wag tqatgjpd qnd had one child living with film j ihe rest were all grown up. One of the cowa for whicli payment was claimed he had never seen, Plaintiff called R. Morrison,manager on Mr Holden’s property at Te Aroha West, as a witness, who staled defendant had received on an average four day’s work a week, at 5s per day, for the last three months. That was all the monies he had received. Defendant was not given more than four days work a week—that was the instructions witness had received. Plaintiff in his evidence stated when he left the cows with him, defendant pointed out a new house which was being built and said it was his, and also represented that he had land. Witness had since ascertained, however, that defendant had no property. He had offered to let defendant work out the amount by draining, cutting ti-tree, etc., on his (plaintiff’s) farm, but he declined. Ordered to pay the whole amount by March 4th, or in default one month’s imprisonment in Mount Eden Gaol,

Eliza A. Read v. John McSweeny, claim £2 17s 6d for glazing cattle, In this case Mis Read, the plaintiff, staled she had allowed defendant to graze cattle on land sfie occupied at Te Aroha West, but had only received IQs from him on account.

Defendant stated he owed plaintiff no money whatever, and for the defence called James Craig as a witness, who stated that when defendant wa9 summoned he came to him about it, as he (witness) had been acting for the Public Trustee in the estate of the late Geo, Dead, As he did not see on what grounds Mrs' Head could claim rent from defendant he wrote to the Public T ustee on the matter, from whom he received a letter in reply, which he now handed to His Worship to read. His Worship said the Public Trustee in the letter produced stated that Mrs Read was only allowed to occupy the place on sufferance, until the place was sold, rather than, as was thought, leave her without a roof over her head. Ho could not seo on what gvoucds she claimed rent from MoSweeney. If any rent was due, it was payable to the Public Trustee, for the benefit of the estate as a whole, and not to Mrs Read. He further stated that too much consideration had been shown her from the first, and she had not failed to avail herself of it without much regard to law, etc. Mrs Read said the letter read was only from the Auckland Agent for the Public Trustee, who knew nothing about the affair. She had always written to the Public Trustee at Welhngton direct, and bad permission from him to collect ront, etc., and she asked that the case might be adjourned in order that she might produce the letters she referred to in Court. His Worship said he would grant an adjournment to next Court day, January 21st, on payment by defendant of costs £1 18s. Defendant stated she could not pay that amount now, but would do so before next Court day. This was all the business.