RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1296, 29 January 1885, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka—Wednesday, Jan. 28, 1885. [Before J. Beswick, Esq., K.M.] CIVIL CASES. —sGeddes v. —Warren. In this case the Magistrate said the summons was not served in timp, and consequently the case would have to be adjourned for a month. P. Coira v. D. Quarry—Claim £2 Bs. The evidence of the defendant (taken in Oaniaru) was to the effect that he did not owe the money, or any part of it. Robert White said he served the defendant frequently with drinks for which he did not pay, Judgment for the amount claimed and costs. W. Budd v. J. J. Griffin—Claim £6 15s. Judgment summons. Mr Aspinall appeared for the plaintiff. The defendant said he was not in a position to pay. He had a wife and four children. To Mr AspiDall: He had worked in several places since the judgment. Mr Aspinall said he had earned a good sum of money since judgment was got against him. His Worship said he would have to pay £1 per month. The defendant said he could not. His Worship said be would adjourn the case for a fortnight, and he would then make an order. W. Klee v. C. Taylor—Claim £llss. —The defendant admitted the claim but said he had no money to pay it.— Judgment for the amount claimed and costs. K. Matthews v. A, Chisholm—Claim £4 5s. —The sum of £4 had been paid into Court, and judgment was given for the balance with costs. J. W. Velvinv. Harry Kahu—Claim £5 )6s 6d.—Judgment for the amount claimed and costs. R. Mathews v. John Elder—Claim £5. The plaintiff said the amount was due for the service of a horse. In reply to Mr Aspinall he denied that the services had been promised to be given for nothing. As the groom who made the bargain was not present the case was adjourned with costs. Gray and Storey (trustees for Mrs Hornbrook) v. B, Hornbrook—Claim £l2 16s Bd. Mr Aspinall appeared for the defence. K. F. Gray proved that he was one of the trustees, and produced the deed of separation under which the defendant! agreed to pay £1 per week. | 3n reply to Mr Aspinall the witness admitted having received on behalf of Mrs Hornbrook £3OO, and said the money had been invested. Mr Aspinall applied for a nonsuit on the ground that by a clause in the deed the deed became null and void if the defendant did not pay monthly. His Worship took a different view of it, and said it would be absurd to say that because the man neglected to pay the deed was void. # After some argument ou this point the defendant was examined and said the account was not correct. The item £4 3s 4d should be £5 15s 6d. He was not in a position to pay monthly. He had never denied his liability. He had earned only about £l2 for the last six months. His Worship : What do you live on ? The defendant: I live from hand to mouth. His Worship : Were you able to live on £l2 for the last 6ix months ? The defendant : Yes, your Worship, that is all I earned. To Mr Aspinall • I owe some debts jn the town. I cannot pay the amount of £9 lGs now. Mr Gray suid lie was keeping another woman. His Worship : That is a luxury. However, we will not bring scandal into Court. The parlies to the suit had better arrange as to how the amount should be paid.—Judgment for ±,9 10s and costs, The Court then adjourned,