RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 368, 27 June 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.) Wednesday, 24th Jt/iy. Annie O'Connor was charged by Sergeant Titchener with being drunk in a public place on the 23rd instant. Charge dismissed with a caution, &s it was a first offence, and the prisoner had been locked up all night.

* Friday, 26th June. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., KM.)

Hogg v. Ann o' Conner. — No appearance. Police v. Capstick.— Charged with permitting two cows and two calves to wander. Pleaded guilty. Fined, 10s., and costs of Court, ss. 6d.

Police t. Sinclair. — Charged with lunacy. Prisoner had been drinking. He was remanded for medical examination.

M'Cartky r. Kitching. — Mr. M'Coy for plaintiff; Mr. Henderson for defendant. In this case a writ of certiorari to remove the same to the Supreme Court had been applied for, and the Resident Magistrate's Court commanded to hold the matter over for the time by the Judge. To be mentioned again on Friday, 24th July. Capstick t. MGoldrich. — Amount paid into Court.

Lowe v. Isteed. — Mr. M'Coy for plaintiff ; Mr. Copland for the defendant. This was a claim for half the expenses of putting up a boundary fence. Pleas : Not indebted and the statute of limitations. The fence had been erected over bix years ago, and no notice, as required by the Ordinance, had been given. For the defence it was urged that there was an agreement, supported by sufficient consideration, to pay for half the fence inde» pendently of the Ordinance ; and though six years had elapsed, the debt had been acknowledged by a letter (produced) within that time. His Worship agreed that there was a good debt ; but thought the acknowledgment, or letter sought to be used as such, not sufficiently explicit to bar the statute. Judgment would therefore be for the defendant, but without costs.

Harrobin v. Pope — Mr, M'Coy for- plaintiff ; Mr. Henderson for the defendant. Claim of £26 for wages as groom to Pope and Yeend. Mr. Henderson pressed for an adjournment as the defendant was absent on important business, Hi» Worship did not think this a sufficient reason, and, as the adjournment was not consented to by the other side, would not grant it. Evidence having been given by the plaintiff, judgment was given for the plaintiff for £.20 2s. 6d,; costs of Court, £1 55.; and professional costs, £1 Is,