R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 3181, 16 April 1889, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON-TUESDAY. (Before Mr H.S. Warden, 8.M.) LARCENY. Robert Thompson was brought up for judgment, and His Worship said nfter considering the report of the Probation Officer he would admit the prisoner to probation. His father and the prisoner would have to enter into recognisances in the sum of £SO each for six mouths, and pay the costs of the prosecution, U 14s. He would he required to report himself once a month to tho Probation Officer at Mastorton, and although ho had not set it down as a condition, he would strongly urge upon the prisoner tho advisability of taking up somo industrial pursuit and give up attending racecourses, which, ho felt strongly, was a great source of danger to him. He would be discharged upon thn recognisances being entered into. FKKOISO DISPUTE.

Bright v Falconer.—Mr tfkipper appeared to arguo before the Court whether a verbal agreement w,ib bind, ing. He quoted several cases •in support of his contention, He also tskrd that tlje Court should make an order to have the line of fence removed to its proper boundary. Mr Beard replied for plaintiff, and His Worship said mcording to the evidence the line was erected some thirty links out in 47 chains, and, if he made an order for the fence to be removed he did not see how the other side could be called upon to contribute .towards the cost. Tho case was, however complete in itself, and judgment would be entered up for plaintiff with costs,

Mr Skipper intimated that he would give notice for a rehearing of the case on the grounds that he would be prepared to set forth to tho Court, In the meantime his olieut was prepared to pay the amount of the claim into Pourt, upon tho understanding that it would ho impounded by the Court in the meantime,

Tuesday, April 30. was fixed upon Jo hear the counsel on both sides, and judement was entered against Fal coner for £l9 16s, and costs £8 6s.

Adam Armstrong v. 'J. Ingley. Illegally impounding certain cattle tho property of defendant. Mr Beard asked that-the matter he adjourned till after tho case now lixed to bo heard in the Supremo Court had been heard. The evidence would be the same in both Courts, and as the case involved a question ofcerttficate and title, he thought it might bo adjourned, His Worship intimated his desire to hear from defendant what steps had been taken to push the matter forward in tho Supreme Court, Defendant sworn, stated that he had done all in his power to push the case on, The. Judge of the Supreme Court was absent from Wellington, and he was informed by his solicitors in Wellington that the case would be proceeded with on their return.

Ify plaintiff: Wiib quite prepared to proceed with the case immediately after the issue of the writs. Was not waiting for Blackwoll to produce evidence about himself. His Worship said he did not think his deoision would prejudice the case in the Supreme Court, Plaintiffcontended thathis Worship could give a decision under the 10th faction of the Impounding Aot, He. submitted that tho case which was adjourned on the 2Gth February was only adjourned till after the sitting of tlieSiipreme Court on the 18th March. At the same time ho was pir-pared lo accept Mr Beard's oiler to accpt the decision of tho' Supremo Court, and call no evidence for ihu defence. His Worship intimated thai he would place himself in direct communication with tho defendants iolicitur in Wellington, and in the ineantimo the case wotdd be adjourned sine (Ik,