RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1182, 4 December 1883, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka—Monday, Nov, 26,1883. [Before S. D. Barker and J. Talbot, Esqs t , J.P'B.] PROHIBITION ORDER. Robert Fenton was charged on remand with wasting his estate. After hearing evidence the Bench decided to grant a prohibition order for 12 months. ASSAULT. Edward Gillum was charged by J. A. Young, of "Winchester, with assault. The defendant admitted having shaken his fists in the complainant's face, but denied having done anything further. John Albert Young, having been placed in the witness box, said he did not wish to press the charge against the defendant. The defendant said He wished- the case to be heard. He had received provocation from Young, and he would like to ask him some questions. J. A. Young was then sworn, and said that" on the 24th of November about 1 p.m. the accused with Messrs Nicholas and Findlay came into his hotel. He would explain that previously he had given him permission to fiah provided he M not sell any fish taken by him. He found out that defendant had sold fish, and he told him he would not allow him to fish there any more. He then got excited. Defendant : . Did I give you any provocation to refuse me- a drink when I went iotoyoor house. Witness: Yes, you assaulted me. Defendant: That was afterwards. Is there anything unlawful in my selling fish any more than you giving—— The Bench said this had nothing to do with the case, and consequently the defendant wan not allowed te finish his question. James Findlay and N, C Nicholas gave evidence to the effect that when complainant accused defendant of having offered to sell flsh, defendant shook nis fist in his face. ' The Bench decided to dismiss the case as the assault was of a trivial nature, but ordered him to pay the costs of the Court. CIVIL OASBB. B. Thompson v. H. S. Austin—Claim £l8«. Mr Aspinall appeared for plaintiff. 'Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. Richard Hornbrook v. W. R. Parkerson —Claim £l2 Is. Mr Aspinall appeared for the plaintiff. The plaintiff it appeared was employed hi the defendant- The plaintiff had £IOO worth of horses, ploughs, etc., when he entered the- employment of defendant, and defendant agreed to pay £2O a year for the use of the p'ant, or it was called 20 per cent imterest, besides paying him wages at the irate of £1 16s lid a week. Tut agraftmtflft VM yearly. Winn the

tirat year expired, on the 4th of April last, the defendant after some consideration decided to continue at the same rate for another 12 months- In Sptember last, however, the plaintiff represented to the defendant that he wished to leave, as he could do better, and defendant agreed to let him go. The accounts between them appeared to have been kept very loosely, but af tor the case had been heard for about two hours the defendant said thai what . he objected to was an item of £8 13s 3d, being interest at the rate of 20 per cent per am um on the plant of the plaintfil for the time he worked, from the 4th of April to the date of leaving. He stipulated when plaintiff was leaving that he would not pay this sum until next April, when the year expired. The plaintiff was absent seven days from his work, but instead of allowing for seven working days he included one Sunday in them. He objected to pay for the Sunday as a working day. The plaintiff denied that the defendant said anything at all about not paying the £8 13s 8d till the end of the yearThe Cjurt gave judgment for the amount of his claim less 6s 3d for one day's work. The defendant also to pay £2 2s costs. J. S. Hayes v. B. Clark-Claim £2O. Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs.