R.M.COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3446, 27 February 1890, Page 2

R.M.COURT.

MAiSTEfiTON-TEUHSDAY, (Beforo Colonel Roberts 8.M.) Mrs Crsnmer v I(, 11. Elliolte, Claim for amount of dishonored cheque, £2. Judgment for plaintiff with 10s cosis; (!.■ A. Pownall v C, Gurote. Claim £5 for cost of defence in case Police v Gurote, Mr Pownall stated that defendant had frequently promised to pay, and his employer on'- being appealed to had paid him the money. He asked simply'for judgment to allow him to retain the amount. His (Vorsllip promised to see iuto the matter,.

Same v F, Taylor. Claim foi balance owing, £5 3s for professional services rendered, Judgment foi amount sued for. " W, Shaw v T. Sewell, claim £1 12s Gd.

Mr Skipper appeared for defendant, and offered to pay 10s a month. This being accepted by plaintiff, an order was made, in default three days' imprisonment in Wlington gaol, P. Wagg v Joseph Lyons. Claim £3 Is Gd for board a.id lodging, ; Mr : I'ownall for plaintiff, Mr Bunny for defendant. '

Thomas Wagg, sworn, deposed thai he was manager of the Princeof Wales Hotel for his mother. The defenda'nl had to his personal knowledge stayed in the hotel for three wepks. He fyul made an entryof (his fact in (ho ledger, Special arrangements were made with defendant for the amount to be paid weekly which was under the usual charge, Had asked for the money, but had not seen defendant in the hotel since. Accounts had been rendered, which had not been disputed beforo today..

To Mr Bunny ; Had kept the books himself and could not account for an erasure which occurred iiuho ledger. Mr D'Arcy, his bookkeeper, may have erased the year, but for what object he did not know. Had, frequently rendered accounts. Hecoguisod the account produced as the tost rendered; This was returned to him with a mes-

i sage on the back to tlio effect that'it ' was not owing. Mi' Bunny asked if tliore was anj enso to meet. There was an entry made, but an erasure had been made by someone who had not made the entry. Ho submitted that defen. da'nt should not ho-embarrassed by coses suph as ll|is.' The plairitif was not suroas to dates, and in fact it might not come within the statuted of limitation. Ho would ask on these pounds fori) nonsuit, ' Mr Powiiall-tjioiight tjie Court could not allow such a trifle to upset the Course of justice. 'lt had been proved that defendant ku] been boardjng in t|ie house, qiul ho' would ask . that. lie should therefore be sworn, His client-rolled on 1888 as tlio year, and he could not, as an amateur, be expected 'to keep liin books accurately as regards date. The Court said it was not at all satisfied with iho evidence brought ] forward, and woiild tlierefo'ro 'non- , suit plaintiff with costs, 1