KESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 163, 23 March 1871, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., R.M.) Thursday, March 16.

Police v. Hvjgins, — Higgins was charged by Constable Titchener, under the Vagrant Act, as having no visible means of support. When the accused was placed in the box, it was evident he was suffering a recovery. As the case was entered into he was seen to shake very much, and he uttered a fearful shriek and fell down in the box in a fit. The usual restoratives were applied, when he was removed to gaol. Case adjourned, awaiting his convalescence.

Police v. Bastinrjs. — The defendant was charged with allowing the chimney of the Commercial Hotel to take fire. Pleaded guilty. Fined 10s, and costs of Court.

Ward v. Murray. — Mr. Keen appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Copland for defendant. Claim, £4 Is, for professional services rendered. Defendant pleaded not indebted.

Mr. Keen stated that whilst he was Articled Clerk to R. ff Ward, he did the work described in the complaint, and produced various authorities from Mr. Murray to act for him.

Mr. Copland remarked that the presentation of the account was informal, and contrary to the requirements of the Law Practitioner's Bill, wherein it requires the signature oi the attorney or his partner, if he has any, to be attached to the bill, and that one month must elapse before proceedings can be taken. The attorney in this case did not comply with the Act, therefore he had no standing in Couit.

Plaintiff non-suited,

Brosnan v. Walsh. — Claim, £5. Two pounds of which was for work done, and three pounds for lost time in consequence of defendant not complying with agreement.

Mr. M'Coy appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Copland for defendant.

In this case it stems that plaintiff had engaged for the sum of two pounds to dig. fence, and sow grass seeds in a piece oi ground behind the Catholic Chapel, thf defendant finding fencing material and seeds. The plaintiff hat ing dug as agreed upon, was thrown idle on account of material for fencing not being forthcoming. It was understood that he was to use some old fencing lying at the rear of the old Union Bank, Peel-street, but plaintiff would not use it, as the same was worthless and rotten. He had repeatedly asked the defendant to find material ; his not doing so, and beintr delayed from day to day, was the cause of his losing other work. The defendant stated that he had certainly agreed with plaintiff to do the wo k specitied ; that when the agreement wa^ entered into, he pointed out to plaintiff where the fencing material was. He considered the same good enough for the purpose required. As for his not getiiiiL 1 ' the grass seeds, he might have got the same in any place in his nune. lie never refused to pay the plaintiff the amount oi his contract when finished. He (the plaintiff) did ask tor 20?, but he refused to give it, as the plaintiff was in a state of intoxication.

The Bench allowed defendant one week to furnish material for fencing ; in the event of hii not doing so, he would give judgment for 20s and costs.

Rider v. Fahsy. - Claim, £20, for money lent at different times Mr. M % Coy appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Copland for defendant.

In this case it seems that tho parties were neighbours, and that at different times money was lent by the plaintiff to defendant. It appeared from the evidence of plaintiff herself that she had got from defendant a house and garden in Munros Gully for the mon^y ; that she got the key, and that she let the same for the sum of 4s per month. She also received a quantity of fire-wood and a few goats. The defendant also undertook to repair the fence, which he had not done, and she had to pay 50s out of her own pocket to repair the same. The defendant also undertook to sow the garden in oats. He had led her to believe that at the end of the season the crop would be worth LB, whereas it was only worth L 2. He had never given her a title to the house and garden.

Mr. M'Coy contended that as the vendor could not give a title to the premises the party purchasing could recover the amount.

For the defence, Fahey stated that when the plaintiff hal advanced him the sum of LlO, that he had then sold her rhe house, and the other LlO was paid subsequent to the bargain ; that the plaintiff had not troubled him until lately about the house until she found that the oats in the garden were only worth L 2.

Mr. Copland contended that the pln'ntiff had recently taken possession. She never has been molested in the possession, and having herself let the place for 4s, she could not possibly have any claim against the defendant.

The Bench remarked that under the peculiar circumstances of the case, he thought the plaintiff was entitled co some consideration in the matter, and siiggested that plaintiff would do well to make the defendant some offer of settlement.

The plaintiff refused to make any compromise, stating that " bad luck had followed her since she had anything to d"o with the rotten house." The Bench reserved judgment until Monday.

Friday, March 17. ("Before the same Magistrate.)

Police v. Higgins. — Adjourned case, for vagrancy — The Bench found the accuse I guilty as charged, and he was sent to gaol for one month with hard labour.

Monday, March 20. (Before the same Magistrate.)

Inspector of Nuisances v. J. Doughy. — Defendant was charged with having fired a gun within the Municipality, contrary to tho Municipal Bye-laws Finod la and costs.

Same v. George Clark. — For allowing filth to accumulate at the rear of his premises. Allowed one week to abate the nuisance.

Herbert & Go. r, Tyson. — Summons not being served, a fresh sunimous to issue.

Rider v. F alicy. — Adjourned for judgment. The Magistrate, having gone into the merits of the case, stated that the plaintiff, under the circumstances, was entitled to a sum of L 4, and LI addtional to give the plaintiff a miners' right, st> that she would be in a position to hold the property, the defendant to assist her in getting a right to the property