RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT TEMUKA.

Temuka Leader, Issue 902, 10 January 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT TEMUKA.

Monday, January 9, 1882. (Before R. Beetham, Esq., R.M.J | MAINTENANCE; Mr Hamersley applied on behalf ol Elizabeth Maltman for an order for main, tenance The order wus asked for on accoun of the threatened intention of the defendant to leave the colony. All askeji for was to ensure that the payments would regularly made. Mi Johnsb n, who appeared for tin defence, objected to the defendant being examined. If the prosecution had ay evidence that defendant was going t< leave the colony let them produce it, Elizabeth Maltman, sworn, said tha her husband had written a letter to M Pearpoint to the effect that he was going to leave the colony. He also told witnesi that he was going to leave the colony. To Mr Johnston ; T do not know any' thing about the arrangement with regard to my husband’s property. It is foul years ago since my husband told me h would go as soon as he was paid for hi property. *His Worship said as this was the las, occasion on which he would sit it wouh be better for Mr Hrinersley to apply fo; an order de novo to the new magistrate. Mr Hamersley agreed to this course. CIVIL CASES. Philip Buckley v. Hugh BrosnahanOiaira £2O 16s. • Mr White appeared for the plaintiff am Mr Hamersley for defendant, 'The evidence of the plaintiff was to th( effect that he had been 31 weeks and tub days', at £1 per week, in the of the defendant. Ho also suppled him with rope and had spent inon-y in looking after four horses to the extent of £1 The amount was still owing. lucross-ax amication by Mr Hamersly he adnaitfec he was a couple of weeks knocking abou his own sections, and had a few weeks holiday. He was 11 weeks ploughjnf 4 weeks stable-keeping. There was settlement on the 3rd of September, bii was not quite satisfied with all *t/i “ booz.s” that were charg-d against h/n

Had a good bit of “dry money” and paid for a good lot of the 11 boozes. Got a cheque for £4 but was not satisfied with it. That was the balance defendant said was coining to witness. Had been paid other moneys besides. Mr Hamersley ; You are going to be married to the cook aren t you. Witness : That’s my business. Mr Hamersley : That’s whut k pt you warn’t it. Witness : No 1 left dearer friends than ever she was. Mr Hamersley ; There was a ball at Spillane’s the night you wore looking tor the h< rses. Witness : Oh yes but I was on the defendant’s business all the time. To Mr White : To the so-called settlement I never agreed. He has paid no money which I have not credited. The 9s 6d 1 spent at Spillane’s was for tea bed and breakfast, I enjoyed myself at the ball.

Hugh Brosnahan : Buckley started to work for me on 24th J une.l 81, and worked 4 weeks. Told him then he cou'd stop and have his tucker free until I got more work for the horses, He next went to Christchurch and after returning was laid up with a bad cold. He worked next for 10 weeks, when witness sold the horses. On the 3rd September witness settled with plaintiff by giving hun £4 14s. Witness next offered him £1 per week as stableman, but he declined itThe Court was adjourned for half an hour to give the defendant time, to make out the different items in his account against the plaintiff. On resuming, the defendant stated that on making up his account it was greater than that with which he had already charged

Mr White mid the defendant had not shown how he arrived ■ at the settlement on the 3rd of September. After a lengthy examination respecting the various items, John Criramin was called. He deposed that he had been present at the settlemcot which took place between plaintiff and defendant, and that Buckley raised no objection to it. This finished the case, and his Worship decided not to give judgment until the following cross-action was heard. Hugh Brosnahan v Philip Buckley— Claim £l7 14s 6d.

This amount was alleged to be due for boarding, and goods supplied. The defence was that the defendant was in the plaintiff’s employment during the time. After hearing some evidence His Worship said In's decision in both cases would be short, both would be dismissed if they would not accept a nonsuit. Their accounts •were in a perfect muddle, and nobody /Could understand them, The nonsuit was .accepted on both sides. Patrickßeiney v. J. Greenaway—Claim ,£3O.

Mr White appeared for the plaintiff and Dr Foster for defendant.

The plaintiff in this case took a contract ffrom the defendant to clear some land on {the Orari swamp. The amount agreed ;npon was £6O, of which £3O had already =heen paid, and the defence was that the .■work was not done in accordance with, the .agreement. The plaintiff stated that he would have had the contract finished in .proper time only for c attle having been Jet run on the land.

The plaintiff, John Harris, and Andrew •Maher, deposed that the work had been .done as well as possible. They had often to pull some grass out of t!ie ground after the cattle had trampled it down.

Thomas Cleary stated that he endeavored to plough the land in question, which was suitably cleared, but it could not be ploughed on account of the horses getting bogged. Daniel Campbell, ploughman, gave corroborative evidence. The defendant stated that he had allowed cattle on the land after the contract was taken. He had to pay £3 to a man to do the work. The work was not done to his satisfaction, and he warned the plain Lift he would get it done at his expense. >

K. F. Gray also stated that the work was not done in a proper manner. The nigger-heads were not properly cut, and the flax only loose! y collected. This having finished the case, his Worship gave judgment for the amount claimed, with costs.