LAW INTELLIGENCE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 253, 8 April 1880, Page 2

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

TEMUKA KM. COURT. ■ Before F. Guinness, Esq, R.M. Wednesday, April 7th. drunk and disordkry. An inobriaio was linod 5h for this <>*"- fen co. Ryan was charged with lanwy thro'igh drink, but, there being no. medical certificate, the cane wan dismissed Poli'-o nnd Webster v. Hamer,idjour ed from last Court flay. Mr Hamersley (for defendant) asked to have the caso adjnurnod 1 i'l th<» Supremo Court caso, Fo'ioo v Dawbor, was trie!, as the verdict in th.it caso might affect tlio one in discussion. His Worship consented to adjourn the rase from week to week until tho decision of tlio Supreme Court was decided. CIVTn CASKS. Hooper v Ryan. No appearance of either parties. Austin v Brosnalian. TUegal detention by defendant of J. 5 Mr Johnston f>r plaintiff; Mr ilamorsley for dcfi-iidani. Ti.e plaintiff hum he was in iho Orari Hotel on 2nd inst Ho had two glasses of beer,and when looking in his pnrse for the money to pay for tln'ni,Mrsßrosnahan took the purse oni of his hand, and, took from it a L5-uolo The purse contained two LI notes, and a haif-sov-ivign, besides tho L 5 note. When ho got it back the L5-note was gone He asked Mrs Brosnahan for it, but she refusod to gi\e it to him, on tho ground that Brosnalian had an account against him Spoke to Brosnalian about the matter, and he askod him if ho could keep ifc to square accounts I refused. Next morning I asked Mrs Brosnahan for it,hut she said her husband had it By Mr Hamersley : I'm certain I've not got an account for L 4 18-s 6d I owe him money, but don't know how much The night before the note was taken Brosnalian showed me an account. Don't remember Brosnahan showing it to mo'beforo MoNulty and Mcßratney wore present when the note was taken. By Mr Johnston : A3iy amount defendant has against mo is for drinks supplied to me in tho hotel. A. McNulty, sworn, deposed : I was at tho Orari Hotel on Friday last. 1 heard last witness call for two drinks, and saw him produco his purse, which was taken out of his hand by Mrs Brosnahan. I saw her take a £5 nolo out of it. Mrs Brosnahan put tho note into tho purse again, and returned it to Austin. . fterwurds I gave tho £5 to Brosnahan, which I took out of Austin's h<nd as he was showing it a>>mit. Brosnahan said h'3 wamod Auviin's note, and that was how I gave it to him I did so as I thought Austin was not capable of taking care of it himself This was tho case for tho plaintiff. Mr Hamersley contended that tho money had been put iv Brosnnhan's hands for safe keeping, and ho retained same as part payment of drinks supplied to plaintiff, and produced aulhoriii-s to show that defendant was jusiitiod in keeping it as payment for gooils supplied, which were not recoverable in a Court;, of Law, and would call defendant to give evidence as to his account. Mr Johnston objected to defendant giving evidence, as the clause of the Act had J not beon compliod with in re tho sot off and contended that the actio'njjwaa not on i | .

for damages, and therefore the Act applied. Considerable argument then took place, and. ultimately leave was given for the plaintiff t:> amend the plaint. Mr Harnersley agreed to the amendment, providing the caso was adjourned, and the costs of the present action allowed to defendant.

The plaint was then altered to money liad and received by the defendant for the use of plaintiff. Case adjourned till next Court day plaintiff to pny costs of present action. Beri v Money, Claim Ll 4 15s lOd for wages. Mr Johnston for plaintiff and Mr Austin for defendant. Case adjourned from last Court day, L 7 15s lOd being paid inco Oenrt.

It appeared from the evidence that some of the work done was not turned out in a workmanlike manner. Judgment for plaintiff for LlO 18s and costs, inclusive of what was paid into Conrt. Brown v Solomon, a Native, Claim L2l. Mr Austin for plaintiff J Brown being sworn proved his claim Fauvel, storeman to plaintiff, proved that the goods had been supplied to defendant and hie wife Defendant, in defence, said that goods were charged which were got by others, and were not his. He acknowledged having L 7 worth of goods, and had paid L 7 10s, and only got credit for L 4 "

His Worship gave judgment for the amount claimed and costs, but said that blame was attached to the plaintiff for not sending his claim sooner, as being a Native he was different to a European. Mr Brown, in explanation, said the account had been repeatedly sent in, -arid it was only now that he had determined to recover before the time allowed by the statute had expired. Ormond v King, Claim L2, amount lodged as security. Mr Austin for plaintiff It appeared that the amount claimed wan held as a bet, and his worship considered tho affair a mero gambling transaction. Whitaker v Cramond L 25 claim, illegal detention of horse Horse to be returned in 7 days, or its value, L 25, with L2 damages, and costs Kennedy v Mundell Claim L527s Id Plaintiff nonsuited with costs, it appearing that a partnership existed between the parties Walsh v Senley Claim Ll 4 10s, for work and labor done Plaintiff nonsuited without costs