RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1267, 20 November 1884, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka —Wednesday, Not. 19,1884. [Before J. Beswick, Esq., E.M., and S. D. Barker, Esq., J.P.] POLIOS CASES. Two first offenders were brought up charged with being drunk and obstructing » thoroughfare. A fine of 5s and costs was inflicted in each case. In one case His Worship said the accused had rendered himself liable to a penalty of £5, and severely cautioned him. For being drunk whilst in charge of a dray, an offender waa fined 20i, including court costs, and ordered to pay fig for the expense of sending his team home. LARCENY AS A BAILEE. . James Pulford wa* brought up charged with larceny as a bailee. Constable Morton applied for a remand. He stated that, although a warrant had been issued for the arrest of the accused gome time before, he wa« only arrested on the previous Monday at Woodbury. The Bauch granted a remand for a week. CIVIL CASES. Gray v. Hornbrook Claim £6 Ss fid, The case was adjourned by Mr Beawick previous to his illness. Mr Aspinall, who said he appeared for the defendant, said be had not anticipated that the case would be called on and as the the defendant was away he would apply for an adjournment. The case was adjourned for a fortnight. A. Russell v. J. H. Edmonds— Claim £l3 2s id. On this case being called on the plaintiff was not present and the case was struck out. At a later stage, however, Mr Russell attended and applied for a rehearing, explaining that he had been unavoidably detained. His Worship granted the request, and, the debt being admitted, gave judgment for plaintiff with costs. Edward Lee v. J. H. Edmonds— Claim £lO 8s lOd. Judgment for plaintiff and costs. Hamersley v. Sundry Maoris—Claim £7 9s 4d. Mr Aspinall said he appeared for fc some of the defendants. The summons had only been served on the chief Tommy. He had came ovsr to attend the Court that morning, but had been seized with a fit and he (Mr Aspinall) had just been informed that he was dead. Mr Hamersley said he was very sorry to hear that the chief was dead, and he asked that instead of the case being struck out it should be adjourned so that a fresh summons might be issued and the expenses kept down Case adjourned accordingly. Thomson and Smith v. Breakwell — Claim £2 5s 7d. Judgment for plaintiffs for £1 15s 7d. Thomson and Smith v. H. Rogers— Claim £ll 14s 7d. The defendant admitted the debt, but said that although he had been in work for some time he was unable to do more than keep his family supplied with necessaries.— Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed and costs, to be paid at the rate of 5s per week for the first four weeks and 7s 6d per week after that period until the debt was paid., Thomson and Smith v. John Smithers —Claim £3 2s Id.—Judgment by default. D. TATLOB V. SIEGEET AND FAUVEL. Mr Hamersley brought under the notice of His Worship the case of David Taylor against Siegert and Fauvel; a claim for wages, and applied that judgment should be given. His Worship said he would give his decision at T»muka that day fortnight. The Court then rose.