RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 994, 22 August 1882, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka—Monday, Aug. 21,1882 [Before J. Beswick, Esq, R.M.] RESCUE OF CATTLE. Mitchell was charged., on the information of Mary Cross, with assault and rescue of a bull which was being impounded. Mary Cross gave evidence to the effect that she had driven the bull three quarters of a mile to the pound, when it was rescued by Mrs Mitohcll and two little boys. Mrs Mitchell also assaulted her and pulled her hair. The two little boys, named James Mitchell and William Johnston, aged 9 and 13 years lespectively, were considered too young to take an oath but their statements were taken. They stated they were driving cows along the road when the bull in question jumped over the fence, and into the paddock. They were taking it back when Mrs LCross came and took him array.

[ Mrs '.'.ucliell, the wife of Eli Mitchell she saw Mrs Cross taking the bull away, and asked where she was going with him. Mrs Cross said she was taking him to the pound. Witness then saw the offy chance she had was to lay hold of Mrs Cress. She took hold of her dress and kept her while the boys took the bull away. “Mrs Cross took a Hold of witness’s hair and began to pull it, and witness then saw the only chance she had was to pull her hair too. This she also did. .

Mr Johnstan appeared for plaintiff and Mr Whit* for defendant in the case. 'Hia Worship said he was satisfied a rescue had taken place, and inflicted a fine of £5. He would dismiss the charge of assault. i CHIMNEY ON FIRE. iPeter Coira was fined 10s for allowing his chimney to catch fire. DOGS LET LOOSE. Thomas was charged on the information of Constable Morton with having allowed two dogs belonging to him to rush at a horse on the public road between Temuka and Winchester. Constable Morton stated that on the night in question, he was riding a horse in company with another, on his way back from Winchetjer, and when in front of Mr Thomas's gate two dogs rushed out at them. His Worship said the defendant laid himself open to a fine of £5, and inflicted a penalty of 20s. STRAY COW. Arthur Gibbs was charged with allowing one cow belonging to him to wandei in the railway yard, but as the service of summons was not satisfactory it was allowed to stand over. civil cases. M. Quinn v. J. Roddick—Claim £l3 18s. Judgment summons. Mr Perry for the plaintiff. After examination of witness as to his capability to pay, he was ordered to pay within 14 daj r s or go to gaol for rnc month. A. McColl v. T. Kinnahan —Claim £9O.

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

This was a very complicated case. It appeared that plaintiff had been befriending defendant since 187 G. He assisted him in starting farming, paid for putting up his house, and fencing his land. He never kept any account with him, and treated him as lie would his brother. The amount sued for remained duo, and he produced an 1.0. U. for it.

Mrs McColl stated that at the time the defendant paid the last cheque she heard her husband say there was nearly £IOO more due from him.

Mr White raised the objection of want of jurisdiction.' The LOU. had been signed in Rangitata outside the jurisdiction o£ tlxo Court, and he asked for a nonsuit.

After hearing Dr Foster’s reply, His Worship reserved the nonsuit point, and decided t ogo on with the case. Thomas Kinnahan, the defendant,stated he had transactions with the plaintiff since 1876, and produced chequesshowing that he had paid hint £3OO. He also produced a pocket-book in which were entries of what he had received from the plaintiff, showing that he had fully paid him.

In cross-examination by Dr Foster, he admitted that the plaintiff had bought a reaping machine for him for £37 10s also a ton of wire for £lB, and a horse for £lB. The plaintiff never claimed any interest for the money he had lent him.

After counsel on both sides had addressed the Court, hia Worship said it was a question of the credibility of the witnesses. He would rather believe the plaintiff. He had befriended the defendant, lent him money without interest from lima to time which gave him a start in life, and it was not likely that both he and his wife would come into Ceurt now to commit perjury, co obtain money from a man he had thus befriended. He would give judgement for plaintiff for the amount claimed and costs.

T. Foden v. W. A. Murrry claim £l9 4s 9d. This case was reserved from last Ccourt day and judgement was gjven for plaintiff forthe amount claimed and costs.

W. A. Murray v. G, Etherington— Claim £43 16s Gd.

Mr White for plaintiff, and Dr Foster for defendant.

In this case a promisory note for the amount claimed was put in us evidence. The defence was that the defendant at the time he signed the promissory note, was not a member of the firm ot Etherington and Co., being only manager, and that he told the plaintiffs agent so. It was three years ago, and never heard about it since until about three weeks ago. The business was taken over by the Misses Hoskins, and, they did not like to have their names appear in the local papers the time of the dissolution of partnership, but it appeared in a Gazette in Wellington. His Worship would give judgment for defendant with costs. Mr White asked for a nonsuit. His Worship declined to grant a non suit. Mr White then gave notice of appeal. The Court adjourned.