R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4565, 24 August 1893, Page 3

R.M. COURT.

GREYTOWN -WEDNESDAY. (Before JlrT. Hutchison, KM.) BREACH OF THE FISHERIES ACT, Moorhoune v. Burt. Breach of the Fisheries Act. This was a case arising out of the pollution of sawdust from Butt's mill. Mr A. Gray appeared for theAcclimatis.ition Society. The offence was admitted and defendant stated that he had made arrangements to prevent its future occurence. A fine of 12 cod costs'was recorded. CIVIL CASES. E. A, Wakelin v, Cleghorn, Claim £i 9s loir timber supplied. Judgment for default, Hebley v. HmaManihcra, Claim £1 is 6d. Judgment by default for amount with costs, Mr Izard fur plaintiff. ASSAULT. Cooper v. McMotrau, Claim 150, damages for assault, by which plaintiff bad bis nose broken, at the last Hunt ClubEaces, nt Tauheremkau. Mr Izard appeared for plaintiff and Mr Pownall for defendant. Evidence wag given by Dr Bey who described the nature of the wound, stated that it was not an easy matter to bteak a man's nose, and would take a bard blow to do so. . The plaintiff stated that he was sitting on a box in the jockey room at Tauher jutyu.ttlien McMorran struck him "fltuout cause, Haroid Welch deposed that he saw • the oflence committed, He endeavoured to prevent the row, Steven Harris stated that he saw the assault, He tried to get into the jockey room to dress, but could not because theie was a crowd outside the loom. This closed the evidence for the plaintiff, and Mr Pawn all addressed the Court at some length. The defendant stated that he endeavoured to prevent n row between Thompson and Cooper. Cooper struck at Thompson, and then at defendant, etriking the latter under the chin, He retaliated with one blow, which struck plaintiff on the nose. Saw plaintiff in the train, but neither said anything about too assault, Did not see anything wrong with plaintiff's nose, Was called up before tho stewards at Otaki lor having a whipping match with another jockey in a race, The stewards cautioned both of them, John Kelleher stated that the row was over a running or fighting match, which Thompson wanted with Cooper. McMorran tried to prevent a row. Cooper struck out with both hands, and hit McMorran on the chest. McMorran immediately struck one blow, caught Cooper on the nose. Walter Thompson gave corroborative evidence. This closed tho defendant's case. The R.M., in giving judgment, said there was no doubt that a serious assault had been committed, the doctor's evidence waß clear as to that. The defence set up was that tho assault was provoked by Cooper, but the evidence did not disclose anything which could be recognised by law as sufficient provocation, He should bo more inclined to take Welch's evi•denee than any of the others, and ifrom thai he should say the assault •wsb not provoked at all. He would ■"'"°/|d#yni for £5 damages and ■costs Kfon arutpuDteil to £2 and Bd. The E,M V remarked that he was •vory much surprised that the stewards •toil no notice of such a di'ijracoful disturbance, MASTERTON.-THURSDAY. (Moro Mr T. Hutchison, R,M,) CIVIL CASES, Pickering v. T. Wrigley. Claim, i2l9s. Mr Pownall for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed with costs, less amount of P.O. order forwarded to the Clerk of the Court, Bone (estate of P.. G. Williams) v, Kariatpa/jjlaim, £2l2s 6d. Mr Pow'SHfioTplaintiff. Judgment deferred, Brooks v. G, W. Smith. Claim, J&7 8s 2d, Mr Beard for plaintiff. Judgment by default for amount claimed with costs and counsel's fee 21s. Brooks v. AgjCleghorn. Claim,£2 93 fid. Mr BearS for plaintiff, Judgment by default with Court costs. Fairburn v.Johansen, Claim, il 6s 6d. Mr Jackson for plaintiff. Judement by confession, with costs' W.G. BeardY.Rckerint?. Claim, £151754 d. Mr Pownall for plaintiff and Mr Bunny for defendant. The claim arose out of the bankruptcy of. v Brown, Rogers and Co., in which plaintiff was instructed by defendant to act on behalf of himself and other creditors. The evidence of the plaintiff went , to show that it was defendant and not M. Williams who. principally inBtructodi plaintiff in respect to the case. Meweowt bad been rendered i 'v Vi':'■■■ i^&

'l. in the 6!,m0 form to Mr Williams is, The debt was incurred in 1888 ''b Several efforts were made to ohtaii payment out of the estate through thi le Assigneo, hut thought the amoun was olaiwed from Mr Piokoriug prioi )S to 1892. ts W. J. Hirscbherg, clerk to plaintiff said tho accounts were rendered to Mi b« Pickering in May, 1892. Understood. that Pickering gare the instruction! 3r to plaintiff. It was, for a tinw understood that the amount could hi io got from the estate, and this was th< i- reason why the delay occurred ir e- sonding tho account to Pickerinc, The account had been rendered to the Official Assigneo. io ij'or the defence, Mr Bunny said he )- mu.it submit that plaintiff had failed t. to prove his case. The account charged to Mr Pickering should bear the names of nil the other parties, who i- wurn acting in concert, and who were ;- jointly liable under the contract, )f D. Pickering stated in evidence it that he had seen plaintiff in respect to tho bankruptcy of Brown, Bogors d and Co, Witness and Williams had g instructed plaintiff on behalf of themselves. The account was first rens dered to him in 1892. He did not '» inacruct Mr' Beard to make out a d number of proof) of debts. By the R.M.: Had given Mr Beard o full instructions to act (or tlieiu in the best manner. Michael Williams, the next witness o called, stated that bo wont to Mr !. Beard with Mr Pickering, and asked J him to act on behalf of Sfessra Williams and Birker and Mr Pickering. Did not understand that Mr Beard was to act for anyone else, Had reii ceived a bill twelve mouths. ago from s Mr Beard fur the amount. e The Bench, in giving judgment, said the law was perfectly clear with i regard to the procedure to bo taken. t The Hunt could noi tax a solicitors f bill, and if a puny d sired to cuntes' - the items of a solicitors bill he must • go io ihe Supreme Court. Thepro--3 sent Court, had no jurisdiction, It seemed to him perfectly plain that no defence in law had been made out, and judgment would therefore be given for the plaintiff with costs.