R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 6, Issue 1639, 20 March 1884, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

■ «■ GREYTOWN-TUESDAY. E. Orbell v J. Tully-Breach of Rabbit Nuisance Act, 2882. Defendant pleaded guilty, but said he had done all he could. Informant said he did not consider there had been any neglect shown by the defendant and would ask for the minimum penalty. Pined £ls and costs.

J. A. Haxton v W. Pole—Damages £2los. This was an action to recover for 'lamage done to a brake hired by defendant from plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff for 355,

There were a considerable number oi cases 3ettled out of Court.

CARTERTON-WEDNESDAY,

Two persons charged with drunkenness were each fined ten shillings.' In one case the defendant paid, whilst in the other, the defendant was imprisoned for 48 hours, . .;

A poor little fellow aged thirteen years, named Alfred was .brought before the Court by Constable Eccleton charged with being a neglected child; The Constable stated that he found the boy wandering about Greytown, without a home. It appears the little fellow is subject to fits. About two years ago Mr William Mitchell, of Morrison's run, very kindly undertook to provide a home for the boy, but he has of late become so afflicted with fits that Mr Mitchell felt that he could not keep him any longer. The Court ordered that ho be sent to the Industrial School.

Taratahi-Carterton Road Board v W. R Waters.—Rates £1 9s 2d. Judgment for plaintiff for amount and costs..

Taratahi Dairy Co. v J. Burrow.— Claim £25. Judgment for plaintiff. G. W. Deller v JR. Chins.—Debt £2 Bs. Judgment for plaintiff. Taratahi Dairy Co, v J. Burrow.— Debt £49 163 4d. Judgment for; plaintiff.

A. McKenzie v Pike and Sheeriri. -Debt £23 6s lOd. Judgment for plaintiff, ;

F, Feist v J. Burrow.-Debt £55 17s. Amount and costs were paid into Court. Mr Beard for plaintiff applied for costs as no notice of the payment into Court had been given. Defendant was ordered to pay a further sum of £2 2s as plaintiffs expenses. MASTERTON-THUPvSEAY. , • (Before H. S. Waedell, E,M.) Louisa Hoy was charged with neg-

lecting to register the birth of a child, No appearance of defendant. The Registrar for the Carterton District produced a declaration of birth signed by defendant, and deposed that it was not registered till the 26th of November, 1883, the child being both in May. The Court asked why the case was not brought up in Carterton 1 .Sergeant McArdle replied that the defendant was now residing in Masterton,

The Court: la this case the registration has been effected 1

The Registrar: It has been done by my error.

The Court: Are you liable to be prosecuted for this error 1 Registrar: I believe I am. The present prosecution is taken merely to secure a legal registration, the one I made being illegal.

The Court inflicted a fine of one shilling without costs. William Parkes was charged with neglecting to register a child in accordance with the Act. ' The defendant said he was not aware the child was unregistered, He always left the task of registration to his wife. "

Mrßagge, the local Registrar, stated hthatthe child was born in June last, and no registration was applied for till February. He said he was not instrucjted to press for a penalty. I 'The Court inflicted a fine of on'e ; shilling. | 'GeorgeYoung vSamuel Hollister. :—Charge of child desertion. MrBunny for informant and Mr Beard for defendant. ; Mr Beard stated that through some unaccountable delay in a letter which he had forwarded to his principal at Nelson he had not as yet received his instructions.

Mr Young hoped the case would not be'ngain adjourned, fie had had the custody of the child four years and wanted the matter settled. Mr Beard did not see that the other side would suffer any inconvenience by a further delay. Defendant had had .charge of the child for four 'years, and three more weeks could make but little difference.

It was arranged that the case should be adjourned till Saturday next, J. Blley v Daniel the value of a bullock, Mr Bunny for the defendant, -

Informant stated that a bullock belonging to him was running at To Ore Ore and that defendant would not givo it up.

The Court said the action should b'e one of detinue. Perhaps the defendant wouth allow the information to be amended to one of detinue,

Mr Bunny objected to the information, being amended. The plaintiff withdrew the case, Mr Bunny asking lor costs. The Court non-suited the plaintiff, ordering costs against him.