RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1159, 1 April 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka—Saturday, March, 29, 1884, [Before S. D. Barker'Esq., J.P. ] THREATENING LANGUAGE, William Hayhurst was brought up in custody, chaiged with having in the morning used violent and threatening language towards J. T. M. Hayhurst, of Green Hayes. , Constable Morton stated that Mr Brogden, in the employ o|f Mr Hayhurst,. came to the police station that morning, and in consequence of what he was told, he (the constable) proceeded to Green Hayes, and on his arrival the accused made used of the threatening language complained of. The accused admitted the charge, but stated that as Mr Hayhurst was leaving the colony he went to Green Hayes see if he (Mr J. T. M. Hayhurst) would make a little provision for him before he _ left ; that he never used threatening or violent language until the police came. His temper then go% the better of him. The Bench cautioned accused to remain away from Green Hayes, and ordered him to find bail in two sureties of £25 each and himself in £SO to be of good behavior for six months.. Messrs Rooney and Ackroyd were accepted as sureties, and accused was accordingly discharged from custody. Temuka—Monday, March 31, 1884. [Before S. D, Barker and D. Inwood, Esqs., J. P’s. ] CIVIL CASES. Thomson and Smith v. G. Latimer— Claim £2 13s 4d ; judgment summons. E. Smith stated that he had offered work to defendant to pay off the debt, and he did not do it before the summons was issued. The defendant said he had no work. He took work from the plaintiffs, who were to supply him with meat while doing it. They did not supply the meat, and he knocked off the work. Mr Smith said the supply of meet was not stopped until defendant had stopped work. Defendant had plenty of money to spend in public houses. The work had not been given him since judgment was recorded against him. The defendant was ordered to pay within four weeks, or to go to gaol for a month. F. Franks v. P. Crofts—Claim £4 7s. Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. Job Brown v. C. Flynn—Claim £7 2s Bd, Mr Aspinall appeared for the defendant. The items in the account were admittedly correct, but the defendant stated the amount had been paid. The evidence showed that in August last Martin Dnnu owed Flynn £l3 16s 6d. Both Flynn and Dunn went to the plaintiff, and he undertook to pay Flynn the £l3 16s 6d which Dunn owed him. He| gave him a cheoue for £5 then, and Flynn continued taking the balance out in goods till his account had reached the amount for which he was sued. After the defendant and Dunn had been cross-examined at £>reat length by the plaintiff, judgment was given for the defendant with costs. In the course of the case it came out that the plaintiff was indebted to the extent of £1 13» 10s to the defendant. Seigert and Fauvel v, John CarterClaim £1 10s. Judgment by default for the amount claimed and coats.