RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1137, 21 August 1883, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temcka—Monday, August 20, 1883.

[Before J. Beswick. RM, and D. Inwood, Esq., J.P..] CIVIL CASKS.

N.C. Nicholas v Allsop—Claim £7 7s. Judgmeht summons. Ordered to be paid at the rate of £2 JOs per month, or in default of any payment 14 days’ imprisonment. Judgment by default was given in the following cases John Greelish vE. Cameron—Claim ±,2 4s. W. Ackroyd v, J. Fergusson—Claim £3 16s 4d. F, Franki v N. Money—Claim £24 16a.

Mr Aspinall applied for an adj ourn menfc, which was granted for 14 days.

J, Brown v Leonard—Claim £lloa.

The plaintiff stated that the amount was due in this way. The defendant came in to pay £9, the amount of a promissory note, and witness made out a receipt for that amount. When defendant came to examine the amount of money he had, he found he had only £7 10s. Defendant paid the £7 10-t, put the receipt in his pocket and refused to give it up, and promised to paj the balance some other time. James Harrison stated that h’ applied to the defendant for the balance, £1 10s; that he acknowledged it, and promised to pay it.

The defendant stated that when he gave the plaintiff the promissory note, he said he had no time then to look through the books, but if the debt were found to bo less than £9 he would deduct it when defendant came to pay the promissory note. He never owed the plaintiff more than £7 10s. Judgment was given for the amount claimed and costs.

0. Flynn v R. H. Pearpoint— Claim £3 15s.

The plaintiff stated that the amount was doe for working fur three days with a team of horses, at 25s per day. Cross-examined by Mr Pearpoint : Too told me to see O’Connor, and that he would set me to work on Thursday. O’Connor could not start on Thuisdlay. J worked twelve days altogether, and only got paid for nine days. I wa« paid for nine days on the cerifijate if M. O’Connor You refused to pay for the three days. I don’t remember you telling me not to start until all hands had gone to w-tflc. You refused to pay me on the ground that I did not do enough work for the money, as I «il alone. After X had been working two days you told me you would not pay me.

R. H. Pearpoint, the defendant, Btated that he took over the contract on behalf of the creditors in the estate of Michael O’Connor. He told plaintiff not to go to work until the other workmen were on the ground, as be could not do much with a team of horses alone. He had never authorised defendant to go to work until the men were there,

The plaintiff having stated that be was to have taken his instructions from M. O’Connor, and that O’Connor in structed him to work, the case was adjourned for a fortnight, to give him an opportunity of calling O’Connor as a witness. The Court then rose.