MAGISTRATE'S COURT, TE A WAMUTU.

Waikato Argus, Volume X, Issue 957, 29 May 1901, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, TE A WAMUTU.

Tuesday—(Before H. W. Northcroft, Esq., S.M. Branichan v. McGbath.— The plaintiff, a drover, residing in the King Coantry, claimed £SO 8s for wages and travelling expenses. Mr A. Svvarbrick appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Collins for the defendant, who pleaded not indebted. The evidence was all heard last court day when His Worship adjourned the case in order that the plaintiffs former employer, Mr Standish, might be called. By permission of the Court the defendant called Mr W. J. Hunter, auctioneer of Ohaupo, but his evidence was not material to the case. Wm. Standish examined by the Bench confirmed the plaintiff's statement as to the remuneration he had paid him previous to entering into the employ ot the defendant. The Magistrate gave judgment for plaintiff for £45 8s with costs £l3 4s 6d. ROUNTREE, JONR. V. GEO. CLEJRY.— Claim £IOO, amount of dishonoured cheque—Mr Collins appeared for the plaiutiff, and there was no appearance of the defeudant. Judgment for amount c'.aimud and costs £4 ss. Jso. Hetet v. Martin and Denton. —Claim £SO 3s 7£d tor goods supplied.— Mr Swarbriok appeared for the plaintiff, and there was no appearance of defendants.—Judgment for amount claimed and costs £G 19s. A. B. Dawson v. Nui.—Claim £l2 19s Gd for goods supplied.—Mr Swarbrick appeared for the plaiutiff and there was uo apperance of the defendant.—Judgment for amount claimed, less £2 paid into Court, and costs £2 17s. J. L. Mandeno v. Harborow.— Claim £3 6s 4d, for painting, material, etc., supplied. The plaintiff appeared in pe-ison, and there was no appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount and costs, Ss. FaiAß, Da vies and Co v. Geo Weeks. —Claim, £1 8a 7d for goods supplied. No appearance of the defen.ia tit. Judgment for amount claimed and costs, 15s. Mr Collins appeared for the plaintiffs. Vaccination. —A certificate of exemption from all liability under The Public Health Act, 1910, in re spect of the nonvacolnatinn of a child, was granted to an applicant, who was corscientiouily of opinion that vaccination would be prejudicial to the child's health.