RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 43, 25 November 1871, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT.

Yesterday. Before W. Fraser, Esq.; R.M. Judgment for Plaintiffs.— -Martin v. W. Nicol, £2 9s 6d for rent; Virginia Gold Mining Company v. J. R. Murray, £9 5s for calls —W. J. Beale v. O. Griffiths, £1 Is 6d, for goods sold and delivered. C. Fletcher v. R. Blake.— This was a judgment summons case, the amount owing being £1 17s 7d.. The defendant said his meaus were very small, but he would pay 10s a week commencing next Tuesday. The R.M. made an order to that effect, and failing payment, one month’s imprisonment. (Before \V. Fraser, R.M., and AV. H. Taipari and Ropata, Native Assessors.) Wr Wakatoueriheri v. Tamehana te Kaki. —This was an action for £lB, the value of a horse alleged to have been unlawfully detained. —Mr AY. J. Young acted as interpreter.—The defendant did not appear.—The plaintiff stated that the horse in question was his own property,

■ ■ *: & • and was tletainccLfcy defendant/who refused to give it up, and consequently a summons was taken out,against him—A, Maori constable proved personal service upon the defendant of the summons in this case.—Tardati Tatfgatgjuru to being.present whan,defendant was asked to deliver up the horse and refused. —The Court gave judgment for the amount claimed, to be reduced to Is, on the delivery of the horse to the plaintiff within 7 days. A, . ~ James Kernick v. T. Trestler—Same v. W. McClare. —These were actions for the recovery of possession of a piece of land, and were before the Court on the 10th instant, and adjourned. Mr Macdonald now stated, that the defendants had cleared from off the land, and the matter consequently lapsed. Bridget Gafjfney v. J. Murray. —This was a judgment summons case. The defendant did not appear, and a warrant was ordered to be issued for his apprehension.

W. Hough v. R. Cashel. —Mr Macdonald for plaintiff.—This was an action to recover the sum of £lO 19s 5d for goods sold and delivered.—The plaintiff proved the sale and delivery.—The defendant denied the debt and said the goods were not supplied to him, but to Mr Crawford, who had been in partnership with him, but there was no deed of partnership.—The It M. observed that loose kinds of par'nersliip often involved hardship, but upon the evidence he must give judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed. H. Burt v. 11. Taipari.— Mr. Lascelles for plaintiff—Mr. Macdonald for defendant. This was an action to recover £9 9s for a fishing net sold to defendant. The plaintiff deposed to supplying the net at the defendant’s request, for the price specified at the time, and now sought to be recovered.—The defendant appeared to be quite satisfied with it, and so did Mrs. Taipari, who also inspected it. During its progress a European wanted to buy it and Taipari said if he could get £l3 for it he’d sell it.—W. J. Jenkins deposed to his knowledge of the net in question, and to his having plaintiff working at it in Taipari’s presence on several occasions. Mr. H. Grace gave evidence of Burt’s bringing the net to the office of Mr. Taipari, and requesting payment, Taipari said “ Taihoa,” (wait-a-while). The net was left atTaipari’s office. —11. Morgan boat-builder deposed to his knowledge of the transaction and that he never heard any objection raised to the net The defence was that the contract between the parties was that plaintiff was to make a net of a particular length, and that Taipari was to supply the twine, but that plaintiff did not supply a new net at all, but merely furbished up an old one.— Horetene Taipari, the defendant deposed, that he ordered a new net, hut the one the plaintiff supplied was an old net in the centre and new at the sides, and witness objected to it, saying it would not hold together. Burt persisted that it was a new one altogether, hut this was not correct. —Tamihana gave evidence as to the size and capacity of the net, to show that it was short measure. The witness said it measured 14 fathoms.—The plaintiff was then recalled, and said it was 22 fathoms. The defendant never objected to it on the ground that it was not the length agreed upon, nor on any other ground. —Peter Peterson -was examined as to the manner in which nets arc usually measured. —Council having addressed the Court, the R.M. gave judgment for plaintiff for £9, and costs £4 10s.

R. Taylor v. T. Dogherty. —Mr Macdonald for plaintiff. This was an action in trover for £2O damages, for the alleged unlawful seizing and impounding by plaintiff, of four cows, the property of defendant. The defendant said the cows were upon his cabbage garden on the Karaka creek, and, as lie could not find an owner for them, he impounded them. The ground in question, is held under mine’rs right. Never applied] for a certificate for a residence site. George Lipsey, poundkeeper in the Kaueranga district deposed to receiving four cows from the defendant on the 13th inst., and putting them into pound. Mr. Taylor released them on payment of 2s. 6d. each. They were released the same day that they were impounded. They were all milking cows, —Mr. Macdonald said he did not know whether there was any defence, but if the defendant would undertake not to meddle with the cows any more, the question of damages would not he pressed. The R.M. told the defendant lie was a trespasser so long as he had no residence site and had no business to impound anybody’s cows. He (the R.M.) thought the owner of the cows had behaved very liberally. Anderson v. Howard.— This was a claim by J. R. Anderson, ticket-taker at the Theatre Royal, against Samuel Howard, the Lessee, for £2 ss, for wages, at the rate of 16s per week. In answer to the defendant, the complainant said Mr. Howard himself engaged him He had received payments of 10s and 5s at a time on account, but not in full, of his demand for wages.. Never heard anything about a meeting on the subject until last night. Never agreeed to take what lie could get. Always intended to get get his wages if he could. —F.Woodwnrd deposed that he had been employed at the Theatre for six weeks, and had only received £2 10s. Took it on account. Never heard anything about a meeting until yesterday. Mr Howard promised to pay up when times got better. Samuel Howard, the defendant, deposed that plaintiff was check-taker for six weeks, and was paid. Then times got very bad, and a meeting was held when all the employees had the option of leaving or going on for wliat they could get, with the understanding that they would be paid if times got better. Plaintiff then went on for five weeks, being paid what the theatre could afford. He then said he must have his full salary or leave, and he did leave. —JolinSteele gave corroborative testimony, and said plaintiff never made any complaint until he got a chanco to be taken on at the panorama, and then .he said ho must have a guarantee for his wages or go.—Mr. Keogh gave similar testimony as to the arrangement which had been arrived at about the wages. Could not positively s\vear that the plaint'ff had been told what was done, but supposed he must have known it.—Morris Moss, check-taker at the theatre, was examined to the Eame effect.—The Court considered that under all the circumstances he must nonsuit the plaintiff, but without costs. Bridget Gaffney y. John Murray.— This was a judgment summons against the defendant, who did not appear at the earliest pait of the day, and was now brought up on warrant. The amount of the judgment obtained by plaintiff was £1 for money lent and costs. Defendant was ordered to pay the money on or before Monday week, or go to gaol for a month.