TEMUKA R.M. COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 250, 22 April 1880, Page 2

TEMUKA R.M. COURT.

Wednesday, Aprit. 21st. Before F. Guivness. Esq,, R.M, The Court sat at 12 - 30. George Galagher v James Moirlson. Mr Austin for plaintiff. This was a charge by the plaintiff against defendant for a common assault, comnitted on 25 th March last, at the Arowhenua station, near Temuka. Plaintiff swore to defendant having blackened his eye, and otherwise injured him without any provocation ; and, defendant not appeal ing to eontr*dict same, His Worship ordered that he be imprisoned for one month in Invercargill gaol ; and ordered that the fees,amounting to LI 15s be paid by defendant, and that a warrant be issued for hia arrest. I

WILFUL DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY. Walter Thorpe, Wra Thorpe, and Geo. Erwood, three little beys of about nine years old, were charged with having broken 24 panes of glass in a house b twe *n j Winchester and Teinuka, the property of i M. Quinn. The aunt of the two Thorpes appeared, and stated that their mother was ill i * bed, while their father was some distance away away working The police stated that the father of tlv boy Irwood was also away from homo working, and his mother was stone deaf. and stated that it was the mother’s wish that her boy should be punished by the Court His Worship said it was not in the power of the Court to punish the boys, and ordered that the costs, L2os, bo paid by the boys’ parents equally between th three, and that a fine of 5s each bo also paid ; and ‘..150 that the parents be bound over in the sum of LlO for their future behaviour CIVIE CASES Bussell v Carter Claim L 6 6s lOd J udgment for full amount and costs Deßenzie v Jno Taylor Claim L 5 Judgment for full amount and costs Geo Taylor v Hcrsley—Claim L4l3s 9d It appeared that a sum of L2 bad no* 1 been credited Judgment foi L2 13s 9d Ackroyd v Innes, Claim L 22 3s 9d for goods supplied. Mr White for plaintiff and Mr Hamersley for defendant Defendant admitted, that part of the claim for goods supplied at the time he was in possession of the Caledonian Hotel, from Jan 14, but objected to the goods sm plied to Bartley, who was then lessee, and ho was the party responsible His Worship gave judgment for that part of the claim admitted. less the items objected, and reserved his decision as to the amount claimed during the time Bartley w :-s in ihc bote], a** it appeared to him a question whether Barfly ;var-, previous to 14 Jm,. a tenant of the defendant or his stew n! Toner v Malarchy, Claim Ll 3 16s 61 ; and MaUrchy v Toner, Claim L 8 2s. Both cases were taken together, the latter being taken as a set off against the former The evidence was of a If ngthy and com'plicated description His Worship gave judgment A. r B Toner for L 6 14s 6d, each party to pay their own costs The Ci nrt tlnm rose