RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1366, 16 July 1885, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuki—Wednesday, July 15,1815. [Before D. Inwood and F. H. Barker, Esqs., J.P.’s.] DRUNKENNESS. Robert Fenton was charged with having been drunk while in charge of a horse on the previous evening in Tomuka. Mr Inwood said the Bench wa» sorry to see accused up again. It was no use fining him—it had no effect on him—and he would consequently be sent to gaol for seven days. UNREGISTERED DOGS. Walker (native), charged with keeping an unregistered dog, showed he had registered it, and the case was dismissed. Roberts (native), similarly charged, said the dog had been poisoned. As he had no witness to prove it, the case was adjourned for a week. CIVIL CASES. J. Tangney v. M. Dunn—Claim £1 2s 6d. Mr Aspinall appeared for defendant. The plaintiff swoie the goods were delivered to Mrs Dunn, and the defendant refused to pay because boots belonging to him ware destroyed in the fire by which plaintiff’s premises were burned. To Mr Aspiuall : All my books, except one, were burned, J produce the book. I never did say that in consideration of the boots being burned I would not sik for this money. Mrs Dunn admitted having bought a pair of elastic-side boots, but not slippe r s. Took three pairs of boots to plaintiff to be repaired. They were burned in the fire. Thought plaintiff would not ask for amount claimed on account of that.

Martin Dunn : Never bought a pair of slippers. Never saw Ins wife wearing •slippers for the last two years. Judgment was given for plaintiff for amount claimed and costs, W. Sweet v. J. Davis—Claim.£3lßs. Mr Aspinall for defendant. The plaintiff that he gave Davis notice several times that his cattle were trespassing on his land, and breaking down his fences. Davis look the cattle away himself once, and they jumped the fence. The damage was half an acre of potatoes, £3 10s, and 8s for repairs to fence. To Mr Aspinall : Davis sent his dog, and the cattle jumped the fence. The wire was knocked out of the fence. —Hart stated he had seen the cattle on the section. He saw Davis’s girl.take them away. They jumped the fence. He saw cattle there several times, but he did not know that they belonged to Davis. The mere fact of Davis’s girl going after the cattle led him to believe they belonged to Davis. In reply to Mr Aspinall he said ho took no interest in the matter, and did not know whether the fence was good or bad, Mark Freddy said he saw Davis’s cattle on plaintiff’s section. To Mr Aspinall : Knew the heifer belonged to Davis, because he saw Davie take the heifer away. Mr Aspinall asked for a nonsuit on the ground that no dates were given. The Bench thought it was sufficiently specified to form a judgment upon the case. Mr Aspinall said it might bo sufficient to form a judgment on, but not for the defendant to answer the charge. The plaintiff was recalled, and stated that the cattle were on his section on the 7th of July. James Davis : Sweet never told m»* ray cattle were in bis paddock, and never demanded any amount for damage until he summoned me. The fence was not good. My cattle were in once. Saw other cattle there a great many times; also sheep. Cattle were going all about there. To plaintiff: The only ti ue you ever told me was on a Sunday. I acknowledge I saw my heifer in there once. I have see i scores of cattle in there, but not mine. Thomas Powell knew the section of the plamtiffin which there was supposed to be a crop of potatoes, but he did not believe there were any potatoes there at all. The fence was down; the top wire was a foot from the ground. Did not know whose Cattle were there. It was very seldom he saw the place without cattle being in it. After Mr Aspinall had addressed the Court, their Worships gave judgment to the effect that it had been proved that one heifer bai been in five times, and a fine of Is for each time was inflicted, making in all 5s and costs. R. Hornlironk v. Walker (native)— Claim £3 19a. Mr Aspinall appeared for plaintiff. The amount it was alleged was due for breaking in a horse. The plaintiff stated defendant gave him a horse to break in. IT was to get £1 and the use of the horse for four month-'. When the horse was broken in defendant wanted to sell it, andl agreed that anything over £lO -which plaintiff could get he could keep for breaking it in. He look the horse to Timanr, but failed to sell it. Subsequently the horse was sold for £l3 at Mr Gray's sale in I’emnka, and defendant now claimed the £3 less commission.

N The defendant stated that he agreed with plaintiff to give him £1 for breaking in the horse. When the horse was broken in defendant told plaint ff if he got a good offer for the horse to let him know. He never gave any authority to sell the horse, but said to let him know of any good offer, and that he would give him 10s. He was away at Wuitaki when tbe horse was sold, and when he came hack he offered tho plaintiff £1 for breaking the horse in and the 10s promised for getting a customer. He also gave 2s 6d, charge for entrance fee, making £1 12s G.l altogether, which sum was placed in the hands of Mr Brewer, Two Maori witnesses corroborated this. Judgment was given for £1 12s 6d amj costs,

Campbell v. G«son—Claim £6. This was a Dunedin case, in which evidence was taken here. The defendant said knew n Mrs Polloelc in Dunedin. She never lent him money. Saw her in 1879. She g ive him £6 to give to his mother. Gave the £G to his mother. Be always had money in the Bank. The Court then adjourned.