R.M. COURT, TEMUKA

Temuka Leader, Issue 269, 10 June 1880, Page 2

R.M. COURT, TEMUKA

;;?• Wwwbsday, Jtthb 4h«. Biiy)U.F. Gotsmm, Esq., B.M. The Court aat at f2'3o. At the opening of the Court, S D Barker, Esq, took the oath of allegiance, jmd hiß seat oo the Bench as J.P QBEK»Ka.*ANaVAGBV ! W.' Pemuth,waß charged with liaviogjOa the Slat May, used profane language in a •public pl«oe. ''y'S r\\ v *' i;; j. The a;r<jQied pleaded guilty, and statecr thai'he wai excited at the time.

His Worship said that this offence wu too prevalent, and he would id future inflict a severe penalty. In the present case, however, he would Inflict a nominal pen. altyoflOs.it being defendant'! flfst appearance before him. t 01 VIZ. CABBI. D*vis v G»rry ( alias Coaeliffe— Claim, LIS fs <W. Mr Johnston appeared for the plaintiff. This was a claim for the value of ahorse ■old by defendant to plaintiff, with a war* rant of soundness. The horse turned out to be unsound, and was returned to the defendant, who took the horse back. His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed and coats, in all Ll 4 6s 6d. Storey v Hobbs—Claim LI. Judgment by default for amount claimed and ousts of cane. Mendeleon v Clayton—Claim L 42 3a 3d Judgment confessed. Defendant applied for time, and. said he was endeavoring to sell his land ; if he could not sell it he would sell acme of his stock. Plaintiff said ne had so wish to be hard ■pon defendant, and if he would give him be would give Aire ifsmonths to pay the bill. Ilia Worship advised both patties to settie the time, between themaelves. \{ " Bronnahan v McCaakill—Cla'm, L 201». Mr Jameson for plaintiff, and Mr Toswill for defendant. . The question in dispute was whether an offer m«de by Messrs Slattery and Roonry ofOamaru to the defendants should be taken as eridence, the same not bearing »<■ agreement atamp. Mr Toswill argued that the drcumen k ought to be admitted as parol eridenee.lKe - defendants having accepted it verbally. * Mr Austin said it could not be accepted, bring ineofficiently stamped. His Worship ruled tiwt h did not want • stamp, as it waa merely an oftr :< After a very lengthy address forth* defence evicence was takeu Hie Worship, in summing up, aaid the question was who wss the employer ; the only time when defendant employed plaintiff was to take up a machine lie ably reviewed the whole evidence, and nonsuited the plaintiffs with costs. Murray Bros v Oardiner—Claim LS6lBa 6d Judgment for plaintiffs for L 26 la and costs " A. Wilson snd Sens v Poff Adjourned till 33rd instant. Levenav Hefferson Claim, 15s After Samuel Burrows, Ghas Storey, W. Root Uprichard had given evidence, Defendant *as sworn, and denied point blank the plaintiff's and his witnesses' statements. Judgment'was given- for plaintiff for amount churned and costs. The Court then adjourned .