RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT TEMUKA.

Temuka Leader, Volume I, Issue 68, 10 August 1878, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT TEMUKA.

Wednesday, August 7A. Le G. Campbell, Esq.]' A disorderly inebriate was lined ten shillings. Mary Jane Trengrove charged John Harris with using abusive and tbreateyiing language towards her, and with assault. A cross action was brought by the wife of the latter against the former for using language of a similar character. The parties live at the Oyari, and much too near each other—a too thin partition dividing their dwellings, and possib.y increasing disagreeable elements in the sound passing through it. The Magistrate settled this, aft ugly neighbours quarrel, by binding liotli parties to keep .the peace for sixmontbs. civil CA C ES. F. Franks v. W. Wyatt.—Claim £4 16s, less £1 paid on Tuesday, Defendant did not appear. Ordered to pay the balance bv monthly instalments of 2os. J. Monaghan v. T. ‘Hdrnbrook.— .Claim 16k 2s 6d. Mr Jameson appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Hamerslsy for defendant. This case was ruled out of Court, after a long discussion between counsel and the Bench, because the summons ,to the defendant bad been served .upon "the wrong person —the father instead of the son. ' Wilson and ‘ Sons v. Jas. Wren.— .Claim £6 16s 2d. Judgment by default, with costs, 15s. W. Storey V. John Green.— Claim £6 3s 6d. Judgment by default M. Quinn v. John Green. —Claim £45 :ss. Judgment by default. ; Love v. -Wpod and Hornbrqok.— Claim for £3l 3s 6d," balance of wages due. Mr Johnston appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hamersley for the defendants. Plaintiff stated that he engaged with Mr Wood on the first of June last year at £1 per week, and some time in November or December he agreed with Mr Wood to alter these terms to an encasement for £6O a year, terminable by° a fortnight’s notice on either side. Gave a fortnight’s notice im April, but .stayed another week because Mr Wood told him he .could not pay him just then. Left at the end of this extra week, and had not since been paid any part of the balance due to him. Thu defence set up was that under 'the second agreement plaintiff had no claim to payment, not having completed the year s service defendants denying that thu agreement was terminable within the year by notice, asserting that the notice referred only to re-engagement at the end of the vear. Judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed, on the ground that the year’s service was nearly completed, and that the evidence on other points was not very satisfactory. His Worship remarked that agreements of this kind ought to be in writing. Drew v. Wa'lace.—Claim £34 10s, for board and lodging, etc., of defendant s son from August, 1871, to September, 3873, at the rate of 10s per Mr Jameson appeared for the phfli.itiff, an d ’Johnston for % .defendant. ' Mf and Airs Drew gave evidence to the effect that thev took the boy (he being mother-

w) in 18«8, liia father promwng to pay _t,he boy should make himsef u-eful in :mv desired 'ray. . In August, 18/1, o:e boy was sent to school at the Po nt, and the claim for keep was brought- % sinpe that time. The defence p-d up wns that no agreement had been made hy Wallace do pay for his son s keep, that the Diws coaxed him away from -the care or .another person, who, rather than lose 'him, offered 6s a week for Ids services. It was found that the boy had been sent to school, but lie bad not gone very .regularly, and be -had plenty of time before and after school -hours io earn his keep. The boy was -taken away from Drew’s in September, 1873, owing to the representations of Mrs Drew that he Ijgd become unmanageable ; but glajms for ’payment was not made until about a year ago, when, it appears, the old friends Drew and Wallace had quarrelled. Judgment was given for plaintiff for half the amount claimed, after striking out £3, value of a watch included in the total amount claimed, but it. could not be made out why it was so. Costs allowed (£4 8s), and solicitor’s fee (£2 2s). A case of set-off was then bi ought ■before the Court, but owing to the lateness of the hour, and The case seeming likely to require a long hearing, it was adjourned till next Court-day.