RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2792, 25 January 1878, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY.

(Before H. C. Lawlor and J. Kilgour, Esqs.i J's.P.) AH ÜBBULT BOT.

A led named Geo. Williams, brought up charged with not being under the control of his parents, was remanded till the 26th inst. APPLICATION FOS Patrick Brown made application for a license for the Tramway Hotel, Waitekauri. The police objected, and the application was refused. KACKAT, COLLECTOB Of COUJTTT XATM, V. ALEX. HOMB.

Mr Macdonald applied for a re-hearing of this case, on the ground that the judgment given for the defendant was bad in point of law. Mr Macdonald proceeded to point out the several grounds on which he relied, and concluded by saying that although he was perforce obliged to make his application on the allegation that their Worships'judgment was bad in law, he could do so with less hesitation when he confessed that on the original hearing he had not, by bringing the various sections of the Bating Act more prominently under the notice of the Court, rendered all that aid which the Court was entitled to expect from the advocate.

Mr Brassey replied, when the Court said the application would be refused, on the ground that no man should take ad* vantage of his own wrong. Mr Macdonald remarked that Mr Mackay was the applicant, while the wrong referred to by the Bench was his, and admitting the maxim one man ought not to suffer for the wrong-doing of another, his client should not be made to suffer for his error; Re-hearing refused. The Justices here retired, and Captain Fnser, R.M., took hia seat on the bench, when the remainder of the business was disposed of as follows: JUDGMSXTS FOB PLAINTIFFS Turner v. Field—Claim £9 12s^ goods, and £211s costs; C. E. Bull v. Woodford, goods £2 8s 9d, and 19s costs; Same v. Arnold, goods £5 7s Bd, and £1 3s costs, to be paid by instalments of 5s a month; McCaul t. Walmsley, goods £6 9s, and £1 13s costs ; Fleming v. A. Somerville, Borough rates, £3 15s, and 10s costs. Adjocbned Cases. FLBKIira V. X'IKEBNT. This was a claim for 10s Borough rates, and it was adjourned till the Bth February at the request of plaintiff. adUIK t. proKBT.■;. Claim of £9 13s 6d, balance of account iteted.

Mr Dodd for the plaintiff asked for an adjournment;, as his client had been obliged to go to Ohinemuri that morning. Mr Puekey objected to an adjournment, and produced a receipt for the amount from Mr Douglas, baker.' Mr Dodd itated that Mr Adlam had frequently. asked for the money and had nerer heard of the receipt. Some time ago Mr Adlam had authorised Mr Paokey to pay the amount to Mr Douglas, but before the samo had been paid he had revoked the order, and Mr Pnckey had subsequently paid the amount to Mr Douglas. ■■■ The Resident Magistrate said in the face of the money having been paid to Mr Douglas after the order had been revoked he must grant the adjournment as applied for. Court adjourned.