RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1181, 1 December 1883, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Geraldine—Thursday, Nov. 29, 1883. (Before H. C. Baddely, Esq., R.M.) ALLEGED MALICIOUS INJURY TO PROPERTY. J. Lewis was charged by Gr, Hawke With breaking down a gorse fence, it being his property. The parties to the action were neighbors, the fence in question being the boundary fence between their sections. The plaintiff brought the case before the Court as he desired to keep his sheep on his own land, and had stopped up several holes in the fence with gorse, which the defendant, it is alleged, pulled down. The sheep thereby got on defendant’s land. Mr White appeared for the defendant, who submitted that the information was bad, as the amount of damages sustained was not mentioned thereon. The Magistrate considered Mr White’s objection fatal, and dismissed the case with costs and witnesses’ expenses, 14s, CIVIL CASES. J. Lennan v. J. H. Wigley—Claim £4 14s Id. Dr Poster appeared for the plaintiff. From the evidence given by plaintiff it appeared that he saw defendant at his station and asked him for a job. Defendant told him he could stay there that night, and on the following day see a ploughman who was working for him who would give him work, Plaintiff did . so and got work. On leaving, defendant refused to pay him bis wages on the ground that he did not engage him. The defendant deposed as to the correctness of part of plaintiff’s evidence, but stated he told him the ploughman was working by contract. Defendant did not engage the plaintiff but the contract ploughman. The Magistrate nonsuited plaintiff on the ground that he had sued the.wroug man. Newman v. Bull—Claim £3 16s Id. ' Dr Foster appeared for plaintiff and Mr White for defendant. 1 On the application of Dr Foster the case was adjourned till next Court day. J. Tasker and Co. v. Wilson—Claim £3 14s 4d. Mr White appeared for plaintiff, and defendant, who was net present, njas represented by Dr Foster. Wilfred Lawson deposed to, being manager f. r plaintiffs during part of the time the account was running, and served some of the "meat supplied. . W. H. Lodge stated that the remainder of the items on the account were, he believed, all served by him to defendant’s men. On one occasion a contract cook in the employ of defendant, in' the latter’s presence/asked him

/ lie would serve him with meat, and he replied he would if defendant gave a guarantee. Defendant did not say anything, and the items furnished to the cook were charged to defendant on the understanding that a written guarantee was forthcoming. As it was not, he left off supplying the cook. The Magistrate here remarked it would have been far better if the defendant had put in an appearance in Court, as then he could have made the Court acquainted much better with his line of defence. He did not see he could do otherwise than give judgment for plain - tiff with costs. ' Several other cases were settled out of Court.