R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VII, Issue 2006, 3 June 1885, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

OARTERTON-TUESDAY,

(Before H. A. Stratford, R.M.)

E. Orbell v John Ray. Defendant was charged with offering sheep for sale, at the Taratahi sale-yards that were infected with lice, knowing them to be liifecte^, '" sfondan|; pleaded guilty ajjd was. fined 20s and costs; 7s. '" ' ■jaipes Sextqni y Joseph Jngfey.—rl?hi§ wag an adjouyuej} case. Mr Bearjl for plaintiff, Mr §an<}ilan<Ja' fpr 'defendant. " I Defendant objected tp an itoni'fpr stoep-skpi, which he said Jio hjd not had/ His Worship regominended that the matter should, if possible, be settled out of Court, and allowed the yasp stand over for that purpose The parties loft the Court, and when called on again Mr Sandilands informed the Court that thero was every probability of the case being settled, which was ultimately done. W. P. Allen v J. Proflit and J, Wallis, -Debt, £3lßs H. J. Wallis pleaded not indebted, as it was a partnership dobt between him and Proflit, that he (Wallis) had paid his share of the liability, and that plaintiff knew where Profit was, but did not summon him ; and further that plaintiff did not. serve the bill of particulars on witness' previous to taking this action, W. P. Allen sworn, deposed that the items as in the bill of particulars were correct, and that he rendered the account once, if not twice, previous to taking this action. He believed it was in 1883, as far as he remembered. Defendant was then sworn and stated that he }}<«} npfc received any bill of par- ! tioulam either dffeetly pr indirectly. J To the Court: Ho paid his shai'B about March, 1884. i! ";Hh Worship said that as tho law] stands he was compelled to give judg-1 ment for plaintiff, but he did so without costs. This concluded the business, and the' Court rose. ' .'■•'■ '• : .'