RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 271, 17 July 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Wednesday, July 14th,

Before F. Guiness, Esq., R.M and S D'Barker, Esq, J, P.

TRANSFER OF LICENSE

' Mr Johnston made application on behalf of Mr T. Clayton for a transfer of the license of tho South Rangitata Hotel from H. Holloway, which was granted. John Downes vD. King. Claim —Ll fur lirewo.od sapplied. Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs. John Downes v Smith. Claim —LSO 4s 6d for board and lod ing, and the grazing of a horse. Mr Reid for the plaintiff. Judgment for full amount claimed and costs.

B, Thomson v Simpson. Claim—Ll3 Is LOd for goods supplied. Judgment for amount claimed and costs.

H. Brusnahan vllaymor. Claim —L4 12s 6d Judgment by defaiflfc for amount claimed and costs.

J. W. White vJ. Brown (Trustee in tho estate of Martin Dunn).

This case was adjourned fx*oiu last day for His Worship to consider, and now gave judgment for the plaintiff for full amount

claimed and casts. ■ Mr Austin, for the de-

fondant, gave notice of appeal

Mason v Holloway—Mr Austin for the plaintiff made application for a rehearing of this case, which was decided in favor' of defendant last Court day. The Bench granted a re i lean eg, but subsequently when Mr Hamersley, who was for the defendant, appeared and objected to the granting of the rehearing, on the grounds t 'at he had not been made aware qf the grounds upon which plaintiff made the application, the Bench decided to adjourn the hearing of the application till next Court day, in order that the defendant’s solicitor might be served .with the usual notice.

Currie v Oldfield—This was a judgment summons. Mr White appeared for the' judgment creditor, and Mr Hamersley for the defendant. Mr White asked that the Bench make an order, and said there was no necessity for the plaintiff'to’prove the defendant’s ability to pay, his not attending was sufficient to justify the Bench in making an order. Mr Hamersley contended that it was sufficient for defendant’s solicitor to. appear, and contended that the plaintiff was bound to prove that the defendant has been in a position to pay since the judgment was obtained. The Bench thought with Mr White, and made an order for the payment of LI per week, or in default, three months imprisonment. L. A. Norman v A. Wilson. . Claim —L 5 for overtime. Plaintiff said lie had done the work claimed, and that it was a just and reasonable charge. Defendant denied the debt. He never promised the plaintiff anythihg for overtime ; he had promised him extra, at a time when one of the boys was away, if he would attend to his work and bring the paper out better. This plaintiff did not do, but neglected his work, and caused the defendant considerable loss. GK Sellars and A. D. Wilson gave corroborative evidence of the neglect of the plaintiff in atben.ling to his duties. The Bench considered tho plaintiff had neglected his duties, and gave j udgment for the defendant, with costs.

Gregory y Mom 3. Claim —L 25 ss. This case was acljournrd from last Court clay for the production of a certain‘letter sent by Messrs Maclean and Stewart refusing to consider defendant as owner of section 41, Seadown, on which section the plaintiff had done some ploughing, for which he now claimed It was on account of defendant showing this letter that plaintiff stopped ploughing. The Bench'considered, the weight-of evidence in favor of the plaintiff, and gave judgment for the amount claimed, viz;, L 25 ss. and costs. Mr Austin appeared for the plaintiff.

Anderson v MeXuece. Claim —L 34 4s lid Mr Johnston, for defendant, submitted that thb Court had no jurisdiction, as the whole of the items wj-e disputed, some of them being over LIOO Case adjourned till next Court day.