THE COURTS.

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 262, 6 February 1873, Page 5

THE COURTS.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE. (Before Vincent Pyke, Esq., R.M.) Feiday, January 31. The case against Michael O'Gorman, for allowing a cow to wander in the streets of Lawrence, in contravention of the Town md Country Police Ordinance, was dismissed upon defendant paying 6a. 6d. costs. Bushll v. Kelly.— Claim of £1 10s. for damage alleged to have been committed on plaintiffs fence by defendant's goat. The case had been adjourned for his Worship -,o visit the scene of damage. His Womip having inspected the fence now gave judgment for plaintiff for 2s. 6d. , and ccsts 9s. Morton v. Lambert.— Claim, £3 B*., amount of an IOU. The plaintiff's evidence had been taken on the 21st inst. ; defendant gave his evidence in the Resident Magistrate's Corn*., Dunedin, under the provisions of the Res'dent Magistrate's Act Amendment Act, 1871. Plaintiff was nonsuited, with costs 14s. A slaughtering license vas granted to Robert Sutherland.

Saturday, Februaiy 1. (Before Vincent Pyke, Es^., R.M.) John Tighe, senr., and John Tighe, junr., were charged with stealing a lamb, the property of Messrs. Cable vnd Dnunmond, Waipori. On the application of Inspector Thompson, the accused were remanded till the 6th instant for the production of evidence.

Tuesday, February 4. (Before Vincent Pyke, Esq., R.HT., the Mayor, and A. Stewart, Esq., /.P.) Hopkins v. Duncan. — Claim of £2 16s. 4d., goods and drinks supplied. Defendant did not appear, and judgment was given for amount claimed, less 2s. charged for drinks, 2a. 3d. charged as glances, and ss. paid the previous eveniig, with 11s. costs. Fraser v. Mears. — Claim of £4175. 6d., service of entire. Defendant did not dispute the claim, but asked f«r an adjournment for a week in order to ascertain if his mare had a foal, in which case he would pay the amount. Tie Bench considered the request reasonable, and adjourned the case till the 11th. Bartlett v. Hammond. — Claim of £17 Is. Od. Mr. Copland for plaintiff; Mr. Mouat for defendant. On this case being called, it was stated, after a conference between the parties, that defendant was willing to confess judgment for the amount claimed, with costs of court. Mr. Copland wished the Court to make an order for professional fee, as it was exceedingly hard, after his client had been put to the expense of retaining counsel, and coming to court prepared to go on, that at the last moment defendant should be allowed to confess judgment without paying the expenses incurred. Mr. Pyke said he saw the hardship of the case, but he had no power to make an order for professional fee, as the Bench had not heard the case. The Act did not restrict the time of confessing judgment, and a defendant could do so at any time before the hearing. Judgment confessed for amount claimed and costs of court.