R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 5, Issue 1512, 18 October 1883, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

. .JSEFOBE.IM WARDELL,iRiM-i F. H. .., Obstructing the' police in the due exe- ,; Ration of, j tl|eir,^ity li i.,..Tbe .constable ;Sai<l he' ■■ -as'' he' had no^farther.'evidence 1 than; he • ; liadSvodiicißd ; '-at; ( the f WitMrawiy^ Constable Eccieton v. Wharetaka,— Same' offence., Constable jjccletqn gave evidence'fial smjtjie Mj\ihsftnt while wfts'arresting Martini 'te Ore \ ,who.m' ho';had:i.cailVd! to. his' assistance •■ from > d ssisting-' ■ him., ;■ ■The defendant' :; 1 tontrarf'htf had 11 ,'fp. 'assist;': th;e .laa.. ,'t)ie ! pi'ison,er- was his .hi'lterest enemyirVlhej Court pojrited.oivttci defendant that)it ~waßvery 4 called • 'ifet o lw Mfiotye] sHould''do|so "but' |ers^9 p were "to volurite'er'theirassistance.' The 'Court was satisfied to reprimand him and dis miss the information. A charge of against the same defend-' . •aiji,wMalso^i?missejJ. A ;, [ r| 1 i- v ' ut '' ; .. ™ ,l v m ; „ ■ ,ilo ThW c l)e^ ; ;Affilktwn, : ,^,l|r il for pom;, plamanL Mr GravW defendant. This ; Yonthe formeV bcia3ion;;yh'6& ihecomplaint I fas.\wMrawni/o l cc'upied Court 'brdered , 'delnWntftb^pk^,asum of ; 7sj y c hJwo c ipm|£pitoivards the expensed of •ihiMfifitti il 3os, expenses-of! i w^ne^es,:i,pd.i ! 2lS( complainants expensed -.Jjiijijio (Mj'ni i.ui.Tn-u-.i; ■'■ '<'■&> Taratahi-Carterton Koad'Board V, : W. ! "G. fioberts;-Mss 12s 6d. I ■Judg i " meMor pMMitVcosts/ j .Mnii v George Bowles.^ Mr Sandilands for defendant... '£U; WvmtyM'ifoWWuTii Mali satisaccepted. Judgment for plaintiff for £WW ' and costs '£s is. • 'Several' cases were settled out of Court, aid three judgments entered on I confession. .

I l&muel li«ig|| : Iflpnvera the Ifiridbws TJpjfor of i 3 Bs. : ';.-. The defendants, two strong looking lads, pleaded'giiilty, and in answer to :ttt(T^edai*PMd-lf^o^thfiffi'With 3 ' stones,. .': "■""'"■ ' ;< L Jhe^rk^vej^vnaexcuse.to.' '. "offer Tor your co¥ducVoxceppi&mSThe Court: You will find ii a very .eiplw#muse;nlM. Wha dnoney v Thedefendant?: None/ | u "' ut *' J] ' \ each M 'ton® , £l J l4s for damages, and araaltpbf; ;^aymy,dUAJlii,7Jil| I T.Kapp and Hare v A. B, J, <2amf-; < 4Mi.-Mt £l2 15s 9d. Mr Beard, !f&i\pMntiff/'.i woa.avm;| >, iU- ' -•' pf banfe, 'Mteyf t l' igaiTeaunm ir/itaiwioii r w Wil}iam Riddel Wames-Harding. ;'nP>™^49s i ,BcL o for. f ,boiir < l-and.. Judgment for plaintiff for' amount and fs>W&lkM : lE sr;Skipper; the chim'Wfl^'fof'tne^eWibe'oi^Haia 1 ■ mares. Since the summons was isWefl' pffl^;P^mrtktl, B '; • balance Waa'dfep'iited; ■ '■•■ .. ; sj^i^ the defendant was^responsiblejfQT^iif mare, whicffWine propert< r sJsis, wife. Judgment was given in iiioiiii ■. ' plaintiff for amoutitandcosta. [ v.') Ji '' V W. Day v.'OMalley anil £ spperei}.; i r f-01aim , ;i£20|f0f^|inage3doni'to'Jle- 1 ' fendant'r 1 prop'erty: ° Mr Beard. foP plaintiffand defendant)- ' 'Mf'-'BeM '"Mi 1 his"client had rece-.. jyediye.pounds from the defer das on, 'aVcoimt of his claim. . ,yMr this money ha&be'e'n- 1 paid under a mistake and askcli for an Adjournment, The defendants, under-' •stp,qd[;that the case was settlcd.ahd ._ were, not prepared to go on thai day.. w The-evidence of George Day, am pf k jthoplaintiff,) waß taken ' prior totheTadjo'urnm'ent,! Is< W was , to, leave the district for the, 'shearing sWson. , 't-*-'"'* j r, The question of, a certain tree cut down was the| princi-; '' -pal point l in the evidence, .Witness; i .statingJhaCjitjwasafootthrou[h. ''"■ ,^.P'r,Bunny: How many incies'"a're '■ l lhviH6 a foot. ',, ;^ito. e ??; : Don't you knov 1 (A . <laugh). Mr Beard did not oppose the, ad-, " joummeht pdid that cos'lsl, i-His| client iagr,cedi to .accept' the five pounds provided that the other side paid allW 1 .p'e'n's , M, : but!this:hadlbtibW r donei lw