RESIDENT MAGISIRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1113, 26 June 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISIRATE'S COURT.

Temuka—Monday, June 25,1883.

| [Before J. Beswick, Esq., R.M.] DRUNK IN A RAILWAY CARRIAGE. Robert Ruskett, charged with this offence, was fined 20s; - civil; oases. ; F Franks v, S. Breakwell—Claim £1 8s 6d. ' Judgment by default with costs. Same v. WEagleston—Claim £3 3s 4d. . Judgment by default with costs, -^' Same y. Mallard—Claim £4 6s. y^ Judgment by default with costs. Siegert and Fauvel v. Leonard— " Claim £7 lis 6£d. Judgment by default with .coats, R Mathews v. G Levens—Claim £6. Judgment by default with 1 costs. Groundwater v B.''Gibson—Claim £7 i2s, .' , /•:;'; Judgment bv default with costs. C Nicholas v. J T Allsop—Claim £5 7s. Judgment by default with costs. H Flannery v. J G Griffin. i The defendant having filed his declaration of insolvency, the case was dismissed. J Ashwell v. Solomon (a Maori)— ' Claim £8 Is. Mr Aspinall for plaintiff, . Judgment for plaintiff,with costs. v \- r Same v. Cope (a Maoii)T-Claim £2 2s 2d. Mr. Aspinall for the plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff with costs. Temuka-Butter, Cheese and BaconCuring Factory v C Hogan—Claim £5 6s 6d. Mr Aspinall appeared for the plain- itiffs. Mr Ashwell, Secretary to the Company was present. Prior to the case being gone into Mr H L Foster, who stated he appeared for defendant in another case brought by the company, raissd a question as to the jurisdiction of the Court. It was a matter for the Supreme Court, where Companies of a similar nature were concerned. (lis Worship considered that as the question raised was one of importance he would adjourn the cses for a fortnight. H. Oldfield v. W McS Gentlemuu— Claim £9 15s. ; Mr Aspinall for plaintiff, Mr H L Foster for defendant. A amounting to £9 15s had .'y been previously filed in Court. \ As the claim sued-for was admitted the question as to the set-off wa.° gone into. The defendant deposad that an agreement had been entered into between h»mself and plaintiff for the latter to thresh his wheat at and oats at 2d per bushel, to find horses and draw water and to stack the sacks. The weather coming' on wet, the plaintiff came to him and ?aid his horse was not able (o draw the water. Defendant agreed to let him have two horses. The contract was never altered. He charged for thirteen days work for two horses at 7s 6d per day for each horse. * After hearing the case, His Worship remarked that this was one of the stupid arrangements made between parties for threshing their corn, and then they came to the Court to get them out of their difficulty. It was evident that when the wet weather came on* plaintiff tried to make tresh arrangements, on condition that he would stack thf* grain. He should, therefore, allow £3 2s in favor of defendant, and give judgment for plaintiff for £6 13s with costs. B Thompson v. E Pratley—Claim ±ll lOslOd. Mr Aspinall appeared for plaintiff. The defendant admitted the account with the exception of an item of £l6, charge! for a horse. Tlv& plaintiff deposed that he allowe 1 defendant to one of his hovus during the/; lims ,lie was outing feu

crops,Dn the understanding that it"was not to be put into a self reaping and binding machine, yet notwithstanding tiii* the horse was pot into a machine and it dropped down dead. It was too fat for such work. He valued the horse at £l6. The defendant deposed that he did not put the horse into the reaper and binder, but into a tilter, a small machine. He was to cut the grain for Is per acre lets on account of plaintiff lending him the horse. • His Worship said that the defendant was liable for the horse and he should •llow £8 for it, giving judgment for £3loslod. The remaining cases set down for .tearing ." were adjourned till Monday faext. ■;■■■.■■■