Resident Magistrate's Court TE AROHA.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 479, 11 June 1890, Page 2

Resident Magistrate's Court TE AROHA.

; T TUESDAY, JUNE H)th, 1890. I Before TT. W. Northcroft, Esq., R.M.) JrnoMKNT Summons : Collins v. Mi'Pvke : Same v. Booth.— Mr Dyer, solicitor, appeared on behalf of plaintiff, an! in hotlrthese cases requested permission to withdraw them, his client at present having no means to prove the defendants were in n position to pay. Permission granted.—Cases withdrawn. R. S. Brown v. Arthur Downes and Emily Downes, his wife : This was a claim by plaintiff for the return of five ducks claimed by plaintiff and stated 'o be in the possession of defendants, or payment of 15-*, the estimated value of same. Mr Dyer, solicitor fot plaintiff, and Mr Meldrnm for the defence. The evidence in the case was very voluminous and conflicting, the following witnesses being examined on oath : 11. 8. Brown (plaintiff}, and his wife Letitia Brown, Charles Cox (grandson of the Brown<s), W. H Thomson (son-in-law of Browns), Geo. Bygrave, Eva Armit, Margaret Baker, Emily Downes (defendants, Elizabeth Coyle (cook at Club Hotel), Minnie Thaxter (housemaid at Club Hotel). John Brennen (‘ boots ’ at Club Hotel), and Richard Brennan.

At 12 80 p.m. the Court adjourned, and His Worship proceeded to the yard of the Club Hotel, and there requested the several witnesses who had given evidence respecting the identity of the ducks in question to point them oirt. On the Court resuming, and Messrs Meldram and Dyer having addressed the Court on the pvidence, His Worship said : The whole question rested on the identity of the ducks j and he then reviewed the evidence and description given of the dneks by the various witnesses. His Worship remarked that in cross-examination young Cox described the colour of the ducks ve:y minutely, and they knew his description was not, correct, although supposed to have had the ducks more or less under his charge during the previous year or so. The descripiion byMinnieJThaxtif was the best so tar ns three of them went, which were all she attempted to identify. Had the other witnesses known as much about t lie ducks as tuey stated they did, they would have been able to describe them better. Mis Downes stated in her evidence she was entirely dependant on her servants knowledge with respect to the ownership and description of the ducks in question, which, however, she believed were her ducks. Mrs Brown, the person who bought the drake referred to in the evidence from Bvgrave, stated when she bought it she put it in the garden along with her other ducks, and it must have been Mrs Brown who pointed out this drake to the witness’s Cox and Thomson as the one she bought from Bygrave, and vet she could not point out the one she bought from Bygrave when asked to do so by him (His Worship). The ducks had cer tainly not been sufficiently identified to satisfy him ; and from the evidence before him he wns not prepared to say whose property they were. The weight of evidence, it any, he considered to be in favour of their being Downes’, although be did not consider any of the witnesses were absolutely positive of the identity of the ducks. Non-suited with costs of Court, solicitors costs, etc., total £1 10s Gs.

Dillon v. Rowe : In this case Patrick Dillon sued Jas. H. Rowe for 14s 6d, amount claimed for* extras ’ with respect to a fenciug contract. Mr Meldrum, solicitor for plaintiff, Mr Dyer for defendant.

The plaintiff and defendant were both examined at considerable length, only one witness was called who gave evidence in favour of the defence. The Solicitors waived their right of addressing the Court. Judgment for defendant with costs £1 Is.

This was all the business.