RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2162, 12 February 1891, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Geraldine—Tuesday, Feb. 10, 1891. [Before R H. Pearpoint and H. W; Moore, Esqs., J.P.’s.] earn, cases. Geraldine Road Board v Foster Bros —Claim £5 lls 4d, for rates. ■ Mr F Wilson Fmitb, for plaintiffs, asked for a reinstatement of the case. It had been struck out on the previous court day, owing to neither party appearing. The amount had been paid, less the costs, hence the application for a reinstatement. The application was granted. Defendant took objection that the summons had not been served,upon him. 'J he dierk of the Court said he refused to accept the summons, and it was thrown at his feet.

Judgment was given for the amount claimed and costs. A Hoskins v H H Parker—Claim 15s, for 5 weeks rent of a furnished room.

Plaintiff said defendant and his wife had occupied the room from April 24 to August -22, and had paid the rent with the exception of this 15s. Dei fendant had never disputed owing the amount, and had never said that plaintiff was owing him maney. Mrs - Hoskins gave similar evidence.

Defendant said be did not dispute owing 15s, but asserted that the plain l tiff owed him £2 5s lOd.

A cross action by Parker against Hoskins for £2 5s lOd, for goods supplied, was taken next. Defendant cross-examined plaintiff with regard to a number of articles. It appeared there had been a give and take sort of business between the parties, both of whom are Hoskins at times receiving goods frond Parker and vice versa. Hoskins asserted that all these transactions bad been squared, and that Parker never mentioned the indebtedness till he had received a summons for the rent.

After hearing defendant’s statements, and taking into consideration the admissions of plaintiff, their Worship’s gave judgment in the first case for the plaintiff, and in the second case for defendant, both with costs. T. Markham v. R. Crocker—Claim £l3 bn a dishonored promissory note. Defendant did not appear, and judgment was given for the amount claimed, and costs.

[Mr Pearpoint being interested in the remaining cases, and there, being no other JP. available, the Court adjourned till 230 p.m.j ' i On the Court resuming at 2.30 Messsrs H W Moore and W M! Moore, Esqs., J P.’s, occupied the bench.

Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs was given; in the following cases:—E H Pear-! point v J C Whaley—Claim £3 8s 7dJ —Same v Miss McKenzie Claim 16s 2d.—Same v Jos Miles—Claim 12s 8d Court costs. Ordered to be paid within one week, or in default a week’s imprisonment. Same v C.' Hansen—Claim £8 7s 2d, judgment; summons. To pay one pound, per! month, m default of any one payment a month’s imprisonment.—Same v J Grindell Claim £1 4a, judgment 1 summons. To be paid by the end of the month, or in default one month’s imprisonment.—Same v 3 Bamber— Claim £5 2s Id, judgment summons. To pay £1 per month, in default of any one payment a month’s imprison-; ment. —Same v W B Mursell—Claim £3 18s. Mr F Wilson Smith, far. defendant, stated that defendant, who lived at Christchurch, had taken advantage of the Bankruptcy Court since contracting the debt. He asked for an adjournment to allow of his client producing proof of his bankruptcy. Plaintiff objected to the adjournment on the grounds that the plea of bankruptcy had not been filed within the' time specified by the Act, although plaintiff had notified defendant that if he did not supply him with proof of his bankruptcy he would take proceedings. Their Worships decided not to grant an adjournment and the ease was taken. Mr Wilson Smith said that under the circumstances he was not prepared to offer any defence, and judgment was given for the amount claimsd, and costs. This being all the business the Court rose,