RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1153, 18 March 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka—Monday, March 17, 1884. [Before J. Beswick, Esq., R.M., and D. Inwood, Esq., J.P.] DESTITUTE PERSON. John Hay hurst (by his representative J, T. M. Hayhurst) was sued by his brother, William Hayhurst, for maintenance, he being a destitute person unable to support himself by his own labor. Mr Aspinall appeared for defendant. William Hayhurst gave evidence to the effect that he was a destitute person unable to support himself, owing to illness, and that his brother was able to support him. In replj to Mr Aspinall, he stated that about four years ago he sold land he had at Milford for L6OO, but that the greater part of that went to pay lawyers’ expenses. It was ail gone now. He had paid a LIOO deposit on land at Ashburton, which he sold again for LIOO, and that was gone. His brother allowed him L2 per month, but that was not sufficient. That was stopped now. He bad nothing whatever, except what he was standing up in. His brother often said to him he would have to support him, but witness said he would not so long as he was able to work. He was not able to work. It was only last week he was able tn come down town, he was most of his time in bed. He was at 17 years of age as straight as a soldier, but by the ill-usage of his brother in his youth he had been brought to his present condition. If the Court doubted his inability to work, he would do for the present company what he had done for Inspector Pender—that was, strip himself naked. The Court said that was not necessary. Mr Aspinall said he thought the Court had no power to make an order, on the ground that Mr Hayhurst was not now living in the colony.

His Worship strongly advised the parties to try to make some arrangements. He would adjourn the case for a fortnight. CIVIL CASES. W. Storey v, Ellen Breakwell—Claim L2 14s. Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs. F. Franks v. Thomas Pyle—Claim LI. Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs. John Connell v. George Prentice— Claim LI, the value of a pig alleged to have been taken away from plaintiffs paddock by defendant. The evidence was rather amusing. It appeared that Prentice lost a young pig, and went into Connell’s paddock looking fat,it, Connell told him there were 11 small and three large pigs in the paddock, and when he went to look for his pig he found 12 small pigs, He caught one of them, which he believed to be his own, and took it home with him. Subsequently Connell missed the pig and went to Prentice’s place, and told him he had taken one of his pigs. On the second occasion Connell went to claim the pig, Prentice told him he could take it away with him. Connell took the pig a part of the way, when it broke loose, and was never seen by plaintiff afterwards. His Worship nonsuited the plaintiff, on the ground that he had taken delivery of the pig. J. Tangney v, G. Latimer—Claim L2 ils 6d. Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. Thomson and Smith v. G. Latimer —Claim L2 6s 4d. Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. J. H. Jackson v. J, Smith—Claim 14s. The amount was due as the balance of the price of a pair of boots. The defendant said that he ordered the boots when in Geraldine and did not get them for five months after. He then went to work in Timaru and ordered the plaintiff not to make them at all. He never received the boots, but be saw them on the feet of a man named Anderson. He admitted, however, that he told plaintiff to deliver them at Taylor’s I carding house when he had made them. The case was adjourned for a week for the production of further evidence.