R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 2532, 23 February 1887, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

• CARTERTON—TUESDAY. Before Mn Von Stup.mer, R.M. E. Orboll v N. Grace.—Failing to destroy rabbits on his land. Defendant pleaded Not Guilty. Complainant proved that the requisite steps had not been taken to destroy tho pest. Informant asked tar a minimum penalty. Fined 20s and costs. . ■ E, Orbell vC. Dakin— Same offonce. No appearance of defendant. O. H. Gayfer, rabbit agent, corroborated the Inspector's evidence, Fined 20s and lis.

C, H. Giles v James Hodder.—Debt ICs. Judgment by dofault for amount claimed, and costs 10s. • ■ 0. H. Giles vE. G. Williams.—Claim £l9 Gs Cd, Judgmont by dofault and' costs 21s,

J. A. Dudson v Ngaporr Tiki.--Mr Beard for Plaintiff, Debt £4816. Judgment for amount claimed and costs £3 2s. W. P. Allen v P. Goodin Beard for plaintiff, MrSandilandsfor the defendant. ' Tlio case was brought' to recover certain tenements occupied by defendant, In answer to Mr Saijciilands plaintiff admitted that he had': supplied the roofing iron for the house which the defendant occupies, and which was erected by him; which house is erected on land ■which was boing negotiated for; but they could not agree as to prine; but at the same time ho tho ■ (plaintiff) allowed .tho defendant to build on the land, and further tho plaintiff acknowledged to holding a cheque for £l2O belonging to defendant ; an agreement was piit in purporting to show that the aofendant-agreed to pay a rental of 5j per week for : the liousu 1 'which ho, (defendant); had built. In answer to Mr Beard, .the- Plaintiff stated that the agreement was signed and witnessed by Mr' Usher (shopman), to ' Plaintiff October 9th; 1886. ~ Sydney Usher, storeman Plaintiff, corroborated tho statement iivrespocf to, the agreement, Defe'ndant'acknqwledging to'pay a.weekly rental of 5s per week for the house where lie resides; and in answer to.MrSandilands,'he still maintained the sarao.' The dpfenco put in is as, follows: Defendant is an illiterate' person, can neither read nor write, and that when he lodged, tho cheque.for £l2O, when he only owed £33 to Plaintiff; but that he (tho Defendant) fully understood (fiat thp.ballance was to go in part payment for tho land for which they had been negotiating, Tho paper purporting to be an agreement for rent, the Defendant on oath, deposed that he fully understood thatifc was an agreemont to pay 5 per cent for the balance;'of the purchase money .until lie had put hid cross on tlid stamp, and then the Plaintiff said; that it was for rent; being evidence of defend-, ant.

Mr A. J. Armstrong deposed"■ that he was formerly in Mr Allen's omploy, he remejpb.ered defendant paying the plaintiff a sum a| £l2O, ajid that.at . the timo Defendant plainly ijt'ated to JJlaiptiff.to take £2O off the account, and £v)o to e[q as part payment for the land.. This being all.,the eyidence, the .Counsel on each side addressed the Court.

The Cqurfc then adjourned for lunch. On resuming, his Worship nonsuited Plaintiff on tlio ground that the agreement )yas nobis miens. " , ' J. B'uck'eridge y T-bos. joft* ment summons for £0 lfaa.' defendant had been put through 'tin' examination by Mr Beard, Plaintiffs' Solicitor as to his resources, ; since the order hadbeen made, the Court ordered payirient be made by £3 per month in default, ten daya imprisonment; ; ••••';* !