RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1905, 18 June 1889, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuxa—Monday, June 17, -1889. Before J. Talbot and K, F. Gray, Esqs. J.Fs. -•* STBAXCA.TTLI, Gao. Davey, charged with allowing a cow to Wander on the railway on the 38th May, fined 5s and coats. Goo/"Latimer, was charged with Allowing ,a jcpw to ; wander at large, on the public streets at night on the 12th inst. The defendant said the cow was put into a paddock at night and must have got out. Fined ,5s and costs. Defendant was allowed 24 hours to pay. ’ ASSAULT Mrs Alfred Leonard, was charged' with unlawfully obstructing and assaulting a haUiff in T the execution of his duty. The accused said she did Sot hit the bailiff intending to hurt) him. He should not have bounced, her. Goo/ Levons, who had been assaulted, said as defendant had rpleaded guilty he would ask the bench to deal leniently with her. He saidhehad a warrant ; to execute on the accused’s husband on Saturday last. He asked her where her husband was, and she said he; was out. As she would not tell him where he was he told her he bad instructions to seize, a .certain horse. She said he must not so, the horse did npt 1 belong .to them, if ho*did she would kill him. He said he could aot help that, he must seize the horse. He went to get the .animal, and she : came on the lioad with a stick I And struck him. He had a witness,,: who went for the police, hut before he returned,'/he (witness) had got the horse away. A brother of the accused remonstrated with her. He was struck jtcveral.times. The accused .said; when the /complainant.,camp fir&Jb he asked where her husband'was and whether he would be long awfiy. She said he would not he complainant said he would not be bothered waiting, and he would seize 'the chestnut mare. She laid it belonged to her mother, and asked him to wait untill her husband returned,- <aud ?he would show ; them their property. He refused to wait, and she 'said she would kill him. He went ahd‘ got the horse. The bjepch laid accused had rendered, herself liable/either to ihe committed to gaol lor two months, or to a fine of £lO. Such'offences could not he allowed, but as it appeared that a penalty was not pressed for and aceased had made a mistake, the bench Was inclined to deal leniently with her, and let her off on paying expenses. 'But it must be distinctly understood that if such a thing occurred again the offender would be severely , dealt with. The costs amounted to 7s.

Deputy Official Assignee v. H. Drew —Claim £lO 3s 6d. This; was a claim for an amount owing in the estate of S. Burrows. Mr Aspinall appeared for ; the plaintiff and Mr Hay for the defendant. Considerable • argument between, counsel- took place. Mr Hay said the debt sued for was contracted iii 1885, and defendant filed in 1887. He served a notice that defendant had filed on-the Deputy Assignee. According to the 57th section of the Bankruptcy Act a bankrupt could not be sued unless with the sanction of a judge of the court of bankruptcy. He also said he believed the debt had been sued for; two years ago, and judgment entered.up, which would put defendant oujt of court; : Mr Aspinall contended that sufficient notice to the Deputy Assignee of the plea of bankruptcy bad not been given, as Sunday could not be taken into account. He also pointed out that defendant had not with the provisions of the Act, as he had not attended a meeting of creditors. The defendant had been summoned two years ago, but judgment was not entered up, as defendant filed. Mr Hay, contended that defendant had not received any notice from the Assignee of the meeting of creditors, and said in any case it was for the Bankruptcy Court to deal with. He also contended that if Draw had any property.it belonged to the whole of Drew's: creditors, and should be claimed by the Deputy Assignee' for them. It 'would hot be right that Burrows’s 1 estate should get the benefit of the whole of his property. He held that the 21 hours’ notice only applied ihe Supreme Court. Mr AspmalhrepUed, and ultimately it was decided that the case should be brought before the Resident Magistrate on that day fortnight. Hayhurst and-Brpwn v. J, Munro— Claim 7 10s 7d.—Judgment by default for debtand costs. 1

Allan T, Webb—Claim £7 19a 10di —Defendant said be did not- owe r the amount claimed. He called a meeting of creditors, and gave them what money he had, about £B, and he thought p&int|ff miist have got some! of it. He had agreed to pay his creditors in three instalments, but as he could not get work’he had not been able to do so. —The plaintiff said dafondant bad agreed to' pay 10s in the £ in three instalments. He had not done 50,,-and ,now he sued- for the full amount.—Judgment was given for plaintiff, with costs. Vallender v. Parker—Claim £1 lls. —Judgment by default for amount claimed and coats. Lynch r. Budd.—Plaintiff stated that defendant had admitted the debt, but declined to pay two witnesses’ expenses.—Defendant said he disputed the amount charged for labor,—PJaiu-

tiff then deposed that on the- 13th' March he went to defendant’s with a horse and trap. He effected some repairs to a chimney, to the ceiling in , the/passage, and; to ,a range. It took over a day from the time he left home in the morning until he returned in the evening. He charged 12s for his own labor, and 4a for .hie son’s.— Defendant contended/ that plaintiff should only be paid for the time he was actually doing the iwork.—J. Whitehead deposed that the charges made vyere in accordance with trade usage.- If he had been doing the work hd/fihpuld.have had;to hire an express, for which defendant ,wpjild r , have had ip pay—Judgment was given for plaintiff with costs, including 5s each for two witnesses. The Court’then rose: