RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1105, 15 May 1883, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka —Monday, Mat 14,1883. [Before J. Beswick, Esq., R.M.] REGISTRATION OF BIRTH. John Jackson Griffin was charged that he had failed to register the birth of his child within the period allowed by law. Mr CFHalloran, Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages tor the district, supported the application. The defendant stated that he had made two attempts to register the birth. The first had been frustrated by a mistake in the papers, and on the second occasion ha had been prevented by the floods, The R.M. stated that under the circumstances, he would take a lenient view ot the case and dismiss it. Mr O’Halloran stated that unless a conviction was recorded the birth could not be registered, and referred the R.M. to-the-clause of the Act verifying this. After consulting the Act the R.M. said he must convict, and fined the defendant ss. Ihe fine was paid. CIVIL CASES. H. Hodgson v, A. Macintosh — Claim 16s ; money lent.

Judgment by default for plaintiff for amount claimed and Costs. Immediate execution was granted.

Siegert and Fauvel v. James Scott — Claim £B.

The defendant disputed one of the items, to wit a charge for a coil of barbed wire, stating that he had returned a part of it.

After hearing the evidence, his Worship gave judgment for plaintiffs for £6 4s 3d and costs. Immediate execution was applied for and granted. C. Franks v, Wills—Claim £ls /s 4d, being amount incurred for labor, in connection with the late fire.

The plaintiff pleaded not indebted. Mt. Haraersley appeared .for the defendant, and applied that the plaintiff be nonsuited, as defendant was only an

agent. The plaintiff stated that he had incurred the amount at the instigation of the defendant, who was agent for the South British Insurance Company.

-Mr Hamersley said that Mr Franks bad been told by Mr Wills to send the account to Mr Macpherson, manager of the Company. Plaintiff said that the agent instructed him to employ the men and said the Company would pay, and afterwarde repudiated it. The Resident Magistrate did not see how they could sue Mr Wills, he being only an agent. They must sue the Company. Mr Macpherson would accept service of the summons.

The plaintiff drew his Worship’s attention to the notices issued by the Company wish Mr Wills’ name at the foot as agent, and contended that that was sufficient.

His Worship nonsuited the plaintiff, but said that taking everything into consideration he woiujd do so without costs.

Mr Haraersley pointed cnt that Mr Pranks had been advised to send the account to Mr Macpherson, but his Worship said he should adhere to his decision. The Court then rose.