RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1213, 5 August 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka— Monday, August 4, 1884. [Before S. D. Barker and J. Talbot, Esq a., J.P.’s.j TRESPASS. Edwin Forward was charged with allowing a horce belonging to him to winder on a public thoroughfare. Constable Morton pressed the charge on the ground that th« horse was in the habit of opening his own gata and going into his place. Fined Ss and costs. Defendant was also charged with having allowed a horse and dray belonging to him to. wander.on therailway. Constable' Burke sfatod that acting on information received he found on the railway the horse and dray belonging to the defends-t. The defendant was fined 20s and costs. Civil- CASES. F. Franks v, Thos. Pyle. Adjourned. Thomson and Smith v. D. Hefferson— Claim 16 11s 3d. Judgment summons. Mr AspinaH appeared for defendant and said thut lien judgment was given for ihe-plaintiffi an -ipplication fora rehearing was" put ii>, but the B.;nch of Justices who guve the judgment never sat since, and ti e rehearing con'd not he granted. After some further conversation it was decided to go on with the case. Kdward Smith said that all the evidence be had to show that defendant was in a position to p y was that he saw him spending money. He had a farm. T' c case was adjourned until Wednegday, plaintiffs to pay costs. Solicitors fee 10s fid. J. Brown r. Conway. Adjourned for fourteen days. Thomson and Smith v Solomon (Maori) Claim £1 18s.—Judgment for the .■mount claimed and costs. Henry Clinch v. D. McLeod —Claim £5 10s, Judgment summons. Ordered to pay withia 14 days or go to gaol for one month. H. Clinch v% H. Bourne— Claim £2 Is*

Judgment summons. Ordered to pay forthwith, or go to gaol for "3:4 days. E. Brown v, A, Wilson —Claim £7 7s. On the application of the plaintiff it was adjourned for 14 days, as some of it had been paid off. J. Beri v. R. Gea-Claim £3 Is. Judgment summons obtained in 1882. Ordered to pay forthwith or go to gaol for 14 days. J. H. Jackson v. W. Sweet —Ciatm £2 Os 6d. A set off of £1 12s 4d was put in, and 8s 2d was paid into Court. Plaintiff said ha had received some apples from defendant, but could never get an account of the quantity. The arrangement was for lOOlbs of apples at 2d per lb, and there were some 191bs apples got after. Defendant denied thif, and maintained that he supplied apples to the value of £! !2s 4d. His Worship said the book was full of erasures, and the defendant being unable to swear to the correctness of his account, jndgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed and costs. J. Mclnness v. H. Gaaon. The plaintiff stated that he tendered for building additions to a house at Hilton, which he got. He built the addition and get paid for it, and what he claimed for were extras. To defendant: I promised to line the ceiling for £2 10», an i do the partition gratis. . , The defendant said plaintiff had promised to do it for £2 10s, but he had not enough timber, and he gave him a bill for £2 15s. He did it afterwards, and lined it with rough weather-boards. Witness told plaintiff several times that he would not give him £2 10s for the work. The sum of 5s was due to plaintiff, but the balance was not due until he removed the rough weather boards and put tongued and grooved lining in its stead. The plaintiff produced tha specifications, and showed that no mention was mads of tongued] and grooved lining. Although not required of him, he put tongued and grooved material in the house. There would be only about Is 6d difference between the rough lining and tongued and grooved material. His Worship said as ths tongued and grooved stuffhad been adhered to in the balance of the contract the plaintiff ought to have done it that way. The justice of the case might be met by the plaintiff doing the work properly. After some further conversation, judgment was given for £2 4t, the plaintiff to pay his own costs. The Court then rose.