RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1685, 12 January 1888, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka—Wednesday, Jan. 11, 1888,

(Before J. M. Ollivier, Baq., R.M.) ILLEGALLY OK PREMISES. Alexander Martin was charged with being illegally on the premises of K. F. Gray, auctioneer, Temuka, on the night of Saturday, January 7th, 1888. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Fred. Collier, storeman in the employ of Mr K. F, Gray, stated that on the night of Saturday, January 7th, he entered the store of plaintiff in the course cf his duties, and whilst attending to some horses his attention was drawn to a noise on the opposite side of the store. Ha went over and found accused lying on his face. Spoke to him, but only received a grunt in reply. Informed Mr F. K, Gray of the. circumstance. - F. K. Gray, accountant in the employ of Mr K. F. Gray, stated that on hie inr formation accused was arrested. Several things had been missed from the store from time to time, amongst others a hunting crop, paget coat, and stirrup leather. Did not accuse the defendant with stealing same. Knew that he was a suspicious character. Constable Morton gave evidence as to a previous conviction against the accused. In defence accused said that on the night in question ho came into town and had a glass of beer with a friend. On his way home ho felt sick, and seeing the small door of the store open he went in and lay down. He thought there was no harm as he knew the storeman well. He fell asleep, and was only awakened by the striking of a match in his face. His Worship could not accept the excuse^ Accused pleaded bard to bo dealt with leniently, but His Worship considered that he should have thought of the consequences of his act before. Re would be sentenced to ona month’s imprisonment. CITIL CASES. Crayton v. Corcoran—Claim £1 ss. There was no appearance of the plaintiff. —Defendant applied for costs, as he had been put to expense in attending the Court In sL’ nDOrt the application for coats, defendant stateu cua. from a book agent who had pressed mm to purchase a book. The. book had been left at his place, and he had declined to take delivery of it. He did not want the

book and would not accept it.—Judgment was given for defendant with costs 10s.

Eli Mitchell v. H. Nicho’son, junr.— Claim £4 4s 3d, goods supplied and labor, —Plaintiff stated, in reply to defendant, that the goods were supplied to Gill, de* fend ant’s half-brother. Did not know if the goods had been delivered to his (defendant's) camp. They were put on defendant’s dray.—Judgment was given for amount claimed and costs.

Davis v, Hayes—Claiml6a6d,for emptying night pans. Plaintiff stated that the sum of 3s 6d had been paid, the balance was still due, A lot of evidence was taken in this case. It appeared that a portion of the claim was for cleaning and emptying closets at the house of a man named O’Connor upon whose wife Dr Hayes had performed a surgical operation. Finding from the report of the nurse that the closet pans were in a bad condition tha defendant had instructed her to tell O’Connor to have them emptied. The instructions were carried out, but Davis not appearing another message was sent to him through Constable Morton. The closets were then emptied. Subsequently the account was rendered to O'Connor, who had not paid, -md plaintiff now held Dr H»yea liable. Dr Hayes denied his liability on the ground that plaintiff was the legal scavenger, and was the only person authorised to empty closets, and also that ho was not the tenant of the property occupied by O’Connor, and really had nothing to do with the matter. With regard to another portion of the claim referring to defendant’s private hnuse, it was submitted that plaintiff had neglected his duty, and the defendant had therefore been put to expense, the amount of which hb had deducted from plaintiff’s account, —After reviewing the evidence His Worship was of opinion that defendant bad failed to establish his contenlion. There A-fis no evidence of contract as between the Ttfwn Board and plaintiff, who was virtual holder of a monopo'y. The work had been done, and at a reasonable rate, and the nan was entitled to be paid. He was surprised at the objections that had been raised, and-should give judgment for amount claimed and costs.

Aspioail v. Kenn;dy—Claim £4 14s. Defendant had paid into Court the sum of £2 6s 6d, and by agreement an order was made for the balance to be paid paid by Ist April; in default 7 days, Quinn v, Cope—Claim £1 83. Mr W, G. Aspinall for plaintiff. Judgment was given for the amount claimed and coats, payment to bo made within one week, in default 7 days. Pi 1 brow v. J. Barrett—Claim £1 10s. Judgment summons. Order made for payment within 14 days, in default 7 days imprisonment. Tne Court then adjourned.