R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 6, Issue 1842, 18 November 1884, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

M'ASTfiJRTON-MONDAY.

''Before H. S. Wardell, R.M.)

Police v John Carroll sly. grog selling on July 19th.—Mr ;Bunny. for-, defendant. Thor. Carl Jacobson, called by the police, taid he recollected Saturday July 19th. He was in John Carrell's house at Mauriceville, with a man named Martin Basen. Witness asked •for two glasses of rum from Mrs Carroll and got them. He afterwards had'twq v more. He paid half-a-crown for the Tdrinks but did not get his change as? Mrs Carroll was busy. Mr _ Bunny : Bid . you call the attention of the police to the grc selling.at Carr'ollsi ' Witness'-: .1 did not! ■. ; • Mr Bunny: Did you say in your former evidence that, you gave the half-a-crown for sugar'"and box. Witness; I did not. My missis paid two pound notes for the store accounts which included the sugar and socks. ■ Tho Court referring to the notes of the former case did not find a recp/d of Carroll saying he paid half-a:crqwn for socks and sugar. ■ .•""■'■• Witness, continued, said he had applied to for his expenses in coming down to Masterton on the previous occasion. He sent a receipt to Mr Carroll for money paid to Mr, Dreyer for attending the Court aii interpreter. Mrs Cirroll promised him. two pounds to pay Mr Dreyer. He didnot pay,Mr Dreyer the one pound mentioned in the receipt on the date mentioned but a fortnight later. The Court: Why did you pay Mr Dreyer 1 Witness: He stuck ae up on the road for the money. The Court: As far as the interpretation in the case was concerned, the Court pays Mr Dreyer for his services.

Mr Bunny: Did you not .cause the case to be brought on to-day because Mr Carroll refused to pay your expenses, oiv the former occasion. Witness: No. I did it to stop the grog Belling and the drunkeness at Carrolla. Mr Bunny: Have you a down upon Carroll ? Witness: I have not, Mr Bunny: Did you ever threaten to ehoot Carroll I Witness: No, I never did. Mr Bunny: Did you ever threaten to poison his ducks'! Witness: No, I did not.

Mr Bunny : Have you communicated with the police Binoe the last case ?

Witness; I don't understand that question! I can't remember!

Mr Bunny subjected the witness to a lengthy cross-examination, eliciting discrepances between his evidence then and on the occasion when he was before the Court previously, and the case terminated by the Court deciding to dismiss the information, An inebriate was fined 10s or 24 hours, Another named Lizzie Goodgame wat' fined 5s or 12 hours.

Alice "Vaughan summoned Constance Lipmski for abusive language. The charge was dismissed as trivial. civil cases. Mrs Purcell v Thomas Braggins.— Claim II for services as nurse. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount and costs 10s,

F Gray v Thomas Cox.-Claim £l2 1081 Id and interest £1 16s. Mr Bunny for plaintiff, Mr Beard for defendant, Plaintiff claimed to recover the amount of dishonored cheque drawn by Frederick Hadfield in favor of defendant for wages and tendered to plaintiff by the defendant in payment of an account. The cheque was handed in and bore the endorsement of defendant on the back of it, The plea for the defence was tha*"- due notioe of the dishonor had not been given to defendant. The Court held that no unnecessary delay had taken place in giving the notice to defendant of- the'.cheque being dishonored, and gave judgment for the amount, with interest and costs. ,£l6 7s lid.

Official Assignee v'W. Rapp.— Claim £9O. Mr Bunny for plaintiff, Mr Beard for defendant. This action was taken by resolution of the creditors in the estato of Hugh Millar at a meeting held by them, full particulars of which were published by us at the time, The. plaintiff olaimed to recover under section 78 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1882:

From the evidence it appeared that Hugh Millar, who was a boardinghouse keeper at the Kopuarnnga, was indebted in August last to defendant and other Masterton tradesmen to a large amount, It was reported that the day after Millar had received from the navvies a considerable sum for board, he had " skedaddled" to Christchurch, and with prompt energy Messrs Rapp and Perry followed as'far as Wellington, when it was agreed between them that Mr Kapp should go in pursuit of Millur and try I o recover the money, and if snocessful it was to be divided between them after the expenses had been deducted, pro rata to what was owing each, Mr Rapp succeeded in finally getting £9O, and Millar returned to Masterton, where his other creditors pressing him, he filed his schedule.

Mr Beard said the case for the defence was that the defendant did not 'receive monies the property of Millar which subsequently became vested in the Official Assignee, and was therefore not liable for the amount uuder this action. His cross-examina-tion of Hugh Millar brought out the fact that he was a contractor in Christchurch and filed a declaration of insolvency there in January 1881, and was still undischarged from that bankruptcy, _ The evidenoe was concluded on both 3ides and the Court adjourned the further hearing until thenext sitting on Monday, November' 24*,'

Cubed op Dbinkwo.-"A young friend of mine was cured of an insatiable thirst for iquor, that had so prostrated hia eystem that he was unable to do any business. He was entirely cured by hopbittera.: It allayed all that bflrnin? thirst, took away the appetite for liquor, hisnerviJssteady »nd lie has remained a sober and afealy man [or two years, and he hat no desire to return to hn oups,"-.From a leading R,R. Offloial. Beta