RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1516, 8 June 1886, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Geraldine—Monday, June 7th, 1886. [Before H. C. S.Baddeley, Esq., 8.M., and Rev. Geo. Barclay, Dr Fish, R. H. Postlothwaite, W. H. Moore, and A. H., Brisco, J.Ps.] ,

CIVIL CASES. G. Wood v. Fraser—Claim £6 10b, for work done. Mr White for plaintiff. This was a case which bad been adjourned from last Court day, to allow a sheet o£ defendant’s evidence, taken at Palmerston North, which was thought to be missing being found. The evidence having been carefully examined in the meantime it was found to be complete ,with no sheet missing.- Defendant had put in a set-off for £4 Is which both plaintiff and his wife denied,- and defendant's evidence not substantiating it judgment was given for plaintiff with solicitor’s fee £1 Is. J. Charles v; X Godwin—Claim £8 IsMta 4'i, for work dobe at sowing, roiling, aod havesting.

Dr Foster for plaintiff, Mr White for defendant.

A cross action, J. Godwin v. J. Charles —Claim £4 4s, for work done, was put in and it was decided to take the two cases together. It appears that the parties-are brothers-in-law; •In the first case Charles slated that he had done work for Godwin, for which he was to receive a certain amount,' but as it had not been paid when due he had charged extra. Defendant paid £3 13s into Court, After a lot of evidence on both sides the Bench retired, and after a short lime gave judgment for plaintiff in the first case for £2 4s over and above the £3 13s paid into Court, and in the second case, for defendant without solicitor’s costs. ; - G. Helena v. H. Morrison—Claim £2 16s for the paddocking of a horse. Mr White appeared for plaintiff. In this case plaintiff sought to recover the above amount, which was due for s horse that had been running in a paddoqk belonging to his sop, for whom bejrftf agent. ’ .. - Defendant stated that plaintiff h«d pnJsJB raised to allow him to run the horse free of charge, and called Mr Kelman' 'who stated that he ground adjoining plaintiff’s, on had given defendant leave to run his free of charge, .and' also that he plaintiff tell defendanfrithat he would pound his horse if it strayed on his land. It came out in evidence that phin iff had several times asked defendant for money for the keep qf the horse, and defendant bad-never taken steps to hare it removed. ■ V Judgment was given for (he amount claimed, with solicitor’s fee, £1 Is. 'M This being all the business the Court adjourned till June 21st,; ■