RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, TEMUKA.

Temuka Leader, Issue 706, 6 December 1881, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, TEMUKA.

Monday, December 5, 1881. (Before E, Beethnm, Esq.. R.M.) ALLEGED OBSCENE LAXGVAGE. Henry Drew was charged with Laving on 2nd Dcceirber last used obscene language during the nomination of candidates for the Geraldine election on Friday last. Constable Burke deposed : About 1 p.in. ; during the nomination of electors on Friiky kst, accused was standing listening to the candidates addressing the meeting, when he made use of obscene language on one of the candidates making some remarks about the volumeers. The accused denied the charge. The Magistrate cautioned the accused against making use of such language on similar occasions, atld dismissed the casa. CIVIL CASES. Stonyer v Thomson—Claun £lB on a dishonored cheque, as payment for flour supplied. Mr Keid for plaintiff, and Mr Tosswil! for defendant, Mr Tosswill apphed for a nonsuit on (he ground that plaintiff coi:ld on a postdated cheque. He quoted frosi Lav.' CourtReports, Exchequer Casvs. Foster v. Meredith, and other authorities in support of his arguments. He- also stated that the cheque "Was not. properly stamp.-.d. Mr Riid, in icpty i.o the objections, said the above-cited, eases had been over-ruled by recent decisions, and quoted Chitl.y on Bills of Exchange and Law Reports. His Worship reserved his decision till next Monday week T. Sainton v, W. Dundas -Claim £2 17? j Bci on judgment summons. Same (as trustee in Tombs' estate) v. Same —Claim £1 lis 2(1, on a judgment summons^ Ordered to pay the amounts on or before 12th December, or 14 days' imprisonment in each case. Gumming and Haves v. J. Carter—Claim £1 14s 6d. .Application for reinstatement. Judgment by consent for amount claimed, with costs 9s. Matthews and Another v. D. Clarke — Claim £l9 Os 6d. Dr Foster appeared for rlaintiff. A setoff for 4 bags seedj wheat, and for keep of sheep, etc., was filed in Court. Judgment tor plaintiff for £l3 lis 6d costs £1 Os. Counsel's fee. £1 Is. S. Taylor v. K, Gee —Claim £5 2s 6d. A set off, £2 16s 9d for work done by defendant and by defendant's wife for plaintiff was thrown out to enable it to be brought on as a separate action. Judgment for £5 2s 6. Ackroyd v. Carter—Claim £4 18s Id. The sum of £1 having bten paid judgment was recorded for £3 18s Id. Cooper v MeTnnis -Claim £',i 15s. This was was an aplieation for a re-hear-ing of the above ease which his Worship granted. A set off for 15s was admitted by plaintiff. Judgment for £2 15s. The Court then rose.