RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1144, 4 September 1883, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka—Monday, Sept, 3, 1883. [Before J. Beswick. E M., and D. Inwood, Esq., J.P.] DISORDERLY CONDUCT. William Campbell was charged with having behaved in a disorderly manner in the Temuka Hotel. Mr White appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty, Robert Edgworth and Alexander Clyne were charged with having been concerned in the same offence, and the three were tried together. Constable Morton stated that shortly after 10 o’clock on the night in question he heard a noise in the Temuka Hotel. Went in and in a little room found Edgworth, Campbell, and Clyne, Campbell bad his hand up to Edgworth’s lace and was making use of very insulting language, He was asking him outside and flourishing his fist in his face, Clyne was inciting him to fight. They left and he found Clyne and Edgworth fighting away pell mell. How they commenced to fight he did not know. Campbell was the first to insult Edgworth in his.presence, Tff Mr White: I did not see the beginning. Ido not know whether anything happened to provoke Campbell. W. Campbell, one of the defendants, stated he went in and had a drink in the hall. Clyne spoke nasty to him, Edgworth said ‘ I can take Campbell in one band and Clyne in the other, Edgworth provoked biro. Witness bad two brandies and one soda water that day. Did not know whether there was anything else in (he soda water. The Resident Magistrate said be would fine each of them 20s. Robert Edgworth wished to be sworn, and was proceeding to give his vanion of the affair when he was interrupted by the magistrate, who sa : d ‘ You admit you were fighting. You are all fined 20s each.’ TRESPASS, • William Bryant was charged with having committed trespass in pursuit of game on the land of Philip Warcing. Mr Aspinall appeared for the prosecution, and Mr White for the defence.

P. Wareing said that from information he had prosecuted the defendant. The sheep wore disturbed. Mrs Wareing said she saw men chasing hares on the land. One had a lot of hares on his sheuldcrs. She told them they were trespassing, and one of them told her he was on the nearest way to his home.

Mr White argued that hares were not game, and that the plaintiff could only sue for the damage done.

Mr Aspinall stated that there was no proof that hares were not game. His Worship said he was sorry he could not inflict a penalty. He would have to dismiss the case.

John Shea was charged with having allowed one horse belonging to him to wander on the railway. It being his first offence he was let off with a fine of ss.

Mrs Velvin was fined 5s for a similar offence.

, CIVIL CASES. J. K. Franks v. N. Money—Claim L 24 16s.

Mr Hamersley appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Aspinall for defendant. Mr Hamersley explained that the plaintiff had been bound as an apprentice to the defendant, and that the action was for breach of the agreement* F. Franks stated that his son entered into the agreement produced and worked five months. Saw Money and he refused to take him back. He said he would rather be free than be bothered with an apprentice, and that he would rather pay L 25 than take him back. To Mr Aspinall : My son is about 17 years of age. I offered to settle the matter by arbitration. James Franks : I was apprenticed to Mr Money. He was always finding fault with me. I was making glue, and ke said it was no good, and I told him I made it as usual. He said it was not melted. I showed him the glue pot, and he said 1 had better clear. I was going away when he told me I had better finish the week.

To Mr Aspinall: I was boiling the glue. Mr Money told me I was not doing it properly. I told him I was doing it the same as usual. I was a party to the deed. I signed it. The engrossing of the deed is in my brother’s handwriting. My brother is not a solicitor. Ido not know bis age. Mr Aspinall raised a nonsuit point. The plaintiff was an infant and not entitled to sue for damages. The father ought to have been joined with him in the plaint, His Worship decided to hear farther evidence.

Nathaniel Money : I took the plaintiff into ray employment as an apprentice. He gave fair satisfaction up to the Saturday I dismissed him. I told him the glue was not properly made ; he said it was, and I told him if he knew his business better than I be had better clear out. I instructed nobody to prepare the deed. It was brought to me by Charles Franks. To Mr Hamersley ; I had no idea of sending him away until the day I told him to go. I did not want to get rid of him particularly. Oie day I was ill, he left the shop to itself. Mr Aspinall urged the nonsuit point again, and submitted that it was not shown that any damages ware sustained, Mr Hamersley having replied, the Court gave judgment for the amount of L 4, paid into Court, without costs. O’Keefe v J. T. M. Haylmrst— Claim L2 ss.

Mr C. J. Oorr (Christchurch), said he appeared there that day on behalf of the plaintiff. The contract was made in Christchurch, the cause of action arose there, and the case was to he heard there. The defendant applied to have his evidence taken in the Temuka Court for transmission to Christchurch, and he had attended to examine the witnesses. He found, however, that the defendant had failed to appear, but had paid the money into Court. This would put his client out of the expenses, and he now asked the Court to make an order for expenses. Mr Aspinall said the original amount was L 5 11.8 9d, and L 3 6s 8d of that had been paid, for which he held a receipt. The amount of L 3 6s 8d had been given as payment in full. After some further discussion, the Court decided to represent the case as Mr Corr desired to Christchurch,' and also to forward some documents which Mr Aspinall wished to put in. Seigert and Fauvel v J. Malarkey— Claim LSB 10s 2d.

Mr Aspinall appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr White for the defendant. Mr White raised the question of jurisdiction. The amount had originally been L 122, which had been reduced to the amount sued for. As the whole

of the items ?*ouhl have to be gone into, it was beyond Ihe jurisdiction of the Court.

Mr Aspinall called Mr Seigert, who proved that on the 17th July, 1882, the amount had been settled, there being then a balance of L 23 remaining due. The case was nonsuited, C, Flynn vR. H. Pearpoint—Claim L 3 15s.

Mr Hamersley appeared for the plaintiff, This case had been partly heard on the previous Court day, and adjourned for the production of further evidence.

Michael O’Connor gave evidence to the effect that he superintended the work for Mr Pearpoint. He told Flynn to go to work, but that he would not be ready for three days himself. He gave a certificate to the defendant for having worked nine days under his supervision. The plaintiff told him that Mr Pearpoint said the plaintiff was not to work until the other men were working. Mr Pearpoint explained that he paid plaintiff nearly L9O on the 6th of June. Instead of suing him then for the money, the plaintiff allowed him to distribute the money to the creditors in the estate he was trustee for. Now there was not a penny in bis hands of the money of the estate. Judgment was given for the amount claimed without costs. The Court then adjourned,