R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 5, Issue 1315, 5 April 1883, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

OARTERTON-WEMEBDAY. [Before H.S. Wakdkli, R.M.] W. A. P.- Sutton v.. John-Hume,— Breach Rabbit Nuisance Act, 1881. Defendant failed to satisfy the Court that he had taken the. necessary steps to destroy the rabbits, "and was fined 20s and costs. G. W. Dellar vM\w and Sheerin.— Debt £ss, Judgment for plaintiff 'for amount and costs. £6,95, ■ Joscphlngley v..JamesDarrocb.— Debt &\ 155.; Mr Saiidilauds for plaintiff, Mr Gray for defendant. Plaintifl nonsuited.' ••'■ x' x - '•-'' '•

E. Strawbridge v. G. -Bowles,— Claim ■ £l6, Mr Gray for plaintiff, Mr Sandilands for defendant.. This \vas> a case in which the plaintiff claimed the above amount as the price of 20 sheep alleged to'have been x sold to the defendant. The defence set up was that the sheep were bought' by defendant from J. Ingley, and not from the plaintiff, The case occupied,the Court for some.hours, and during its'progress some hard swearing was indulged in by witnesses, one of whom was severely reprimanded by the Court. -: In giving judgement His Worship said this was' another of those; lamentable cases in which there was v a very strong taint of perjury in the evidence and he could scarcely trust himself to comment oiv it lest in doing so he should unintentionally point to.where he considered.the perjury was revealed. He could not give a judgment for the plaintiff. ~-.? Mr Gray here asked for. a nonsuit, and His Worship, entered a ! nonsuit without costs. Several cases were settled out, of Court, while two of importance which counsel said would take a very long time, were adjourned until Wednesday next at 11.30 a.m.

MASTERTON-THIS DAY. [Before H. S, Wardell, R.M.] Constable Lealiy v, Thomas Hansford,—Drunkenness, Fined five shillings. • J. C. Ingram v, J. Nicol.—Allowing chimney to catch fire, Fined ten shillings. W. A, P. Sutton v. A. MatthewsBreach of Babbit'Acti-Defendant said he had no rabbits on his property except those which came to him from his neighbor's properties; Hehtidbeen trying since receipt of notice to kill rabbits on his place but could'hot find any. The defendant then stated on oath that he had between six and seven hundred acres of leasehold He had had a man at'work trimming gorse hedges and killing rabbits at the same time. His boy worked with ferrets and dogs, :•. To Mr Sutton—His man and boywent out every day. .There were, two miles of gorse hedging/'.;;;. <;-. ;;i- t ;. To the Court—Formerly his boy. got a dozen rabbits a'day, now'lie only got four, i ..'•'■". : ' ; : ""\/-J"'"'"'.;. r ",

James Langton said he worked for Mr Matthews and hardly 'ever saw a rabbit at all now, on his ground, though he was out after tho cows first thing every morning. ,; ■'. 7.; ■;:,,-. ~•..- ■ ';■.'' H. Vallance; called by ty informant, stated that ho visited 1 Mr Matthew's, property on March 27: .He saw; one or two rabbits .about the gorse hedge and others about; the; river He' saw no one property; On the riverbed the.rabbits ; Avere.numerous,v'.^:;:":r::^,^ : us ;;: i:!:: : ;'#; !,;,TfelCoiirt^What. *tla ,call numerous'! ■+];/£■;; ■;■ i } !) t :c^''^^ amongthe-bushes; ;Agoodman ; could aday:there.;i

Defendant said Ms. lad was on the lowland on that day. said he,w,as both morning "and;6vening dnithe property. #| Defendant'bai'd' the. lad would be milking in the evening. , " . )/ The Court inflicted a fine of twenty shillings and costs. - ' • E. Wilsone, v M. Mokai-JRates £5 due to Mosterton Highway Board. No appearance-of defendant.' Judgment for amount a costs.

Borough Council v-Robert Hannah —Bates XI 2s 9d. Judgment for amount and 8s costs, Same v 0. E. Worth—Eates £l3 6s 6d. Defendant sent a note stating that he .was not in a position to meet the demand. Judgment for amount and costs. ;' La Eoclie v W. B. Rountree.— Judgment summons L2l Bs6d,'-Mr Skipper, who appeared for plaintiff, called the defendant.

W. B. Eountree deposed that since judgment was given he had been working on a contract ot'Woodville, He had received 75 percent on the contract, but for the last six weeks he had received no money, He had paid wages, but lie had paid no money to storekeepers. Ho met a bill with Mr Rapp on the 4th March, The money was not paid after the judgment; was given. He sent a cheque to Ji!r La Eoche on March 10th. It was not met, because Mr Mmphy disappointed him in an advance to the amount of the cheque. His contract at Woodville was not completed, Ho could not offer to pay more than live pounds a month to the plaintiff. The amount of the contract was £BB3. He had received £775 of this amount. He expected to receive £75 more from Mr Murphy, and it would cost from £BO to £9O to complete the work. '/.'■■.;.

■Tho Court—l can quite appreciate Mr. Murphy's objection to advance £lO for an outside debt, ■ Since the date of the Judgment he had taken about a pound a week from Mr Murphy for personal expenses. ( The Court—l dismiss the information with an order for costs £i against the plaintiff. This ought to be a caution to parties laying an information for a judgment summons without due consideration, The costs will amount to £6, •■

■ The defendant said he was quite willing to pay if given time. Neil k Cookery, v F. M, HadfieldDebt ,£2B ; 2s. Mr Runny for the plaintiff. Judgment for amount and i costs, , Hercock&Taplin.vF.M.Hadfiekl -Debt£3ilos.9d, Mr Beard for plaintiffs. Judgment for amount and costs, Caselbergv F. M. Haclfield.—£B9 2s sd. Mr Bunny for plaintiff, Judgment for amount and costs. W. Dixon vW.Tobu.-Mr Skipper for the plaintiff and Mr Beard for the i defendant. , W. Dixon deposed that he was a carrier residing in Masterton, He arranged with■Tohuin -EappandHarc's shop to cart a load of goods to Hawera, He undertook., to. carry'from two to three tons of stuff there for nine pounds, When he went to load up he could not obtain all the goods which had been ordered, He diet not know what i' the regular charge for carriage amount to along this road, He charged him only five pounds because he took a dray instead of a waggon, Defendant .had paid two pounds ten into Court which he refused to accept, (To Mr Board) He carted about twenty-five .cwt,

Mr Beard—You will be surprised to hear that there was only about fifteen cwt.!

Witness—l know butter -than that, I have delivered goods atPahiatua and got £1 for 28 cwt. I have carried to Eketaluma at rates varying from L2 lOs'to L 3 per ton. Mr Beard hold plaintiff could not recover as he had not fulfilled the contract to carry three tons. Mr Skipper-Defendant did not supply the goods to be carried, and therefore plaintiff could sue for what he had carried in spite of the contract. His Worship was anxious that the case should be settled between the parties, and left his seat for five minutes to enable an understanding to be come to if possible, On resuming it was reported tlrat no arrangement had been como to, but die matter was finally settled between the parties. Smith & Hogg v. Wenloclc—Debt L2 lis 9d. No appearanco of defendant. Judgment for amount and costs.