RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1723, 12 April 1888, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka—Wednesday, April 11, 1888. [Before Captain Wray, R.M., and J. Talbot, J. G-uild, and D. Inwood, Esqs., J.P.'s. .

BIIEACH Or FISHING ItEGHJU/riOITS:

Bichard Spayne and Arthur Best were charged with dragging a nefc, not being a landing net, at Milford on the sth instant.

Mr Aspinall prosecuted, and Mr Hay defended. Mr Aspinall explained the short facts of the case, to the effect that on the morning of the sfch inst. the two accused were camped at Milford, and were seen to put a net iu the water and drag it. Mr Hay said the defendant Best had nothing to do with it. He was only a bystander, and helped to drag the net.

The case was adjourned for a month

CITIL CASES.

"W. Mason v. W. Doran—Claim £5 0s 9d.

The Clerk of the Court said he had received a postoffice order for £5, but the expenses were not paid. Judgment for the expenses was given. M. A. Toomey r. C. Eraser-—Claim £3 Bs.

Mr Aspinall for plaintiff, and Mr Raymond for defendant. The plaintiff stated the amount was due to him for the services of a horse. To Mr Eaymond: No guarantee was given. Charles Eraser said the mare was about 18 years old, and gave some further details, but said no bargain was made.

Ih reply to Mr Aspinall, he Baid he offered to pay less than the amouut charged. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for the amount claimed and costs. Arowhenua Town Board v- Chas. Hammond —Claim £5 lis. A. W. G-aze, Clerk to the Board, stated the amount was due for rent of cottage. Judgment was given for the plaintiffs with coats.

J. J. Popplewell y. Chas. Hammond —Claim 17s 6d. Judgment was given for the amount claimed and costs. [Before J. Talbot, J. Guild, D. In wood, and K. F. Gray, Eaqs., J.P.'s. Q-. McS. G-entlemun v. F. PranksClaim 19s 9d. Mr Raymond appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Aspinall for defendant. Mr Aspinall submitted the case had already been adjudicated upon, and judgment entered up for the defendant. He quoted authorities to show that the case could not be gone on with now. Mr Raymond reviewed the last ease, in which judgment was given for the defendant. The question in that 3ase was whether the goods had been >iven in contravention of an order, [t was since found that some of the joods had been supplied to .Franks rimself, and it was these goods they sued for. The Court, after some discussion, lecided to strike the case out with :osts, including solicitor's fee. Or. McS. Grentlemun v. Mrs Franks -Claim £1 7s 9d. Mr Raymond appeared for the ilaintiff, and Mr Aspinall for the efendant,

Mr Aspinall raised the same objection in this case as in the last, but Mr Raymond urged that it -was quite a different case, as it was the wife who was sued in this case.

A long argument of a very uninteresting character ensued, with the result that the Court eventually decided to nonsuit the plaintiff, and grant leave to apply for a rehearing of the whole case. The Court then rose,