R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 5, Issue 1375, 10 May 1883, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

CARTERTON.—WEDNESDAY, "

(Before H, S, Wardoll, R.M.)

, Wv A, 1 Py Sutton ; V ' WLUiani Lawrence.—Breacli ' Rabbit Nuisiinbd Act 1882. .Fined2osand.costs 19s, ' Same-V ; Jamos' 'o, : 'Gr&ttan—Same, Adjourned by consent to 25th May at M&ijterton. :'■): : Henry:Harrißoni v Pou Tahaua,— Debt £llO s.;'Judgment for' plaintiff for amount'and costs!'. , H. McMaster v Hoera Whakataba. —Debt £23 78, ; Mr Qiay for plain-' tiff., Judgmentior £lB and costs. A, number of other cases were on the list, but wero withdrawn, or a' judgment entered upon confession of claim by the defendants.;:; • yiiw! • i : > • ■' >

MASIjERTQN.—THURSDAY, .

D. F. McCarthy v. Fulko.—Debt £lO ss, fbr giodflvsold' and: delivered. Judgipent for amounfc and coats, ; ! . Mark Foster,' a lad about 14 or 15 years of age, was charged, with using obsceno language in a public place. The .principal, , not ;! being' in attendance the' case was hold, over till later in the day.' '• 1 "?' s 1 Johnßjyner v.'Jolm Allen.—Debt £2 for a pig. Defendant denied the debt, : ■ ',t.

Plantiff deposed he sold the, pig to defendant, which wag' Btrayjrig on de-Defendant-Can you .swear it was your pig 1 '.i.'.. •, . ;■, : Plaintiff—Yes.

Dofondant—Whut do you swear by I Plaintiff—l'knew the pig from rear:»g it from a sucker. ' ; ,, . '\' .Defendinfc-JM jou. over see the pig before 1 ... . PlaintiiM kpew it when it' was sucking itemothcrrlt'waß'nineraontha ibid when I sold it, . >J: Defendant -r Perhaps: you "would swear to somo filmy pigs/ YGji in the habit of doing v that.f ' / , ' -- : ; 'His Worship cannot'alio* that j it's & dangerous thingVwy'unless you ,ean prpve it. His Wtohip wished to the plaintiff' Had nek taken ;wis;Bix';y«ars old.' / i \ ; ;;JPlaintiff said he/did not want to, huny the defendant as he thought he might be hard tip. But he had tendered the account.ofton, and'given on defendant, and also cHargoH him'interest. 3k kw Jbiifc ljttle about the |ut jio/heard jdefeii* the win Queen-at. -OOJiii i\ Defendant —, You are making a,

great mistake, I said nothing of the kind I Witness—You did! Defendant—You are jolly well mis* taken 1 WtneßS— You also promised to pay when I presented Raynert order, Judgment was givei for plaintiff and costs,

Payton and Co, v SheeriL—Debt £5.-rJudgmentforaffiountllirMi«. prohibited. person.- -. r v; v Mr;JimeS'(!laygon supplied-with alone beer by Miss Neilson the-bar j only uw Mr Olayaon supplied oncfon jhe 17tb. • ' called, for th*. jxier ut hlm^if s j^::: : : ; ;Mt Claysori Wvei with a lorig glass of o£ , Mr. ; Beard;said'Hvthatrwaa "thi Me ;it;should,beidisinis^d,- tt[e landlord i^^Mt :} hu'l»er. * PBwon' j'fflprjSWa the serving of Clayson a matter to which Mr Wrig tfas privyi l ' tji'aV'ilie the jiquor^on 'XMibßeayd P 038^!0^8 Waster' w^a rcpponsibio for ' tbq acta of his* aejy^t as the servant might commit a inunjeji and ; the,, inasteri. bear nthoj penalty/ : ' Clause 170 only dealt with the proof of ;the offence. ■

provide ihat'the iiaaWr wiyrespeL' 'rible for his : servant ! ' :i:;:! : i :i - His r ,Worahip said iimsmuchvag a gala , Wagg was. roaponsible . for it. Jle knew,howevor, he was given au interpretation on the Act that was open te hoped tltf, defendant would take tho matter aid get iy ruled decision Hon *[ point ifcs which there,was some doubt. • ■- Boardaccejited tliis 1 view, and "tated the facts, case,,. been Several ordors issued, And. car^liil) iPerepns prohibited, ,b;ufct wrgqt; tOjgive.her ;instructions 'aboutClayßon, as he was going on a journey' ;when ; he -received.'! the Tnotice, AHr Wagg was not aware that Clayson had had a drink in;his house.w..i{ His Worship «aid,he had intimate before that > he would' penalty m would ■ convince inunity that'an : order 1 Vas : not to be trifled with. - These prohibition 1 were very serious, 1 in importance,. -Thero/wag alwayssireat' difficulty to brwj tbeso CfW,})ftfnp tjj-, the with them it was his intention to deal with then);in BBchfl mantis VflHld ' bo a .warning .to off<mders.V Wnder % circumstances.,of the Jireitat case tu| mentioned by Mr, Board jie .thought r something «hort.ofUhkfoll je£aUy."ofr 110, might bp inflicted,^ J# ; v .'ohwfl,. eviden«e was takeii - serving the same prohibited person^ the 19th o£ April,.whence hadvglMg j of whißkey, Saw .Him have liquor twice during the., same day, but could not swear what liquor He a rank. ' Ha was served in 'the back room and dt s . the side bar. ;

To Mr Beard—The liquor wag solved • by Miss' Neilson. Knew it wai' whiskey bepauso I tasted the glM»s3Jl ut . Mr,Beard—You know the taste of wliiskeyl., .S'^alU Witness—l do! A fine of £lO was inflicted^■ jthb,(£ case and a third information wm withdrawn,' ;;; • (Left Sitting,)