RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HAMILTON. Tuesday, December 7, 1875. (Before W.N. Searancke, Esq, R.M.)

Waikato Times, Volume X, Issue 555, 9 December 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HAMILTON. Tuesday, December 7, 1875. (Before W.N. Searancke, Esq, R.M.)

Henry Lewis pleaded guilty to a charge of having been diunk nai incapable in Hamilton West, on the night of the 6th inst. Fined 5s and costs 3s, or 24 hours J with hard labour.

CIVIL BIDE. Morkis r. McCattsland, claim £14 2s 3d. Defendant being desirous of confessing judgment,j udgment, the case was not called on for hearing. In answer to a question from the Bench, defendant stated that he could not pay 10s per week ; he was employed by Mr Le Quesne and was only earning 30s per weak, and Tie owed liis employer £6. Would pay 7s 6d per week if be could obtain money payment for hie wages, but he drew Btores from Mr Le Queane and did sot receive nosey at all, as any overplus went to -pay off the debt owing to bio employer. He had a wife and two children to support. He had been paying off other debts to do which he had borrowed the money from Mr Le Quesne. Mr Morris agreed 'to accept 7s 6d per week which defendant promised to pay if he could so arrange it with his employer to receive as much money. Mr Whitaker, who appeared for plaintiff declined to accept his fee under tke circumstances and Mr Morns agreed to forgo the lCs expenses to which he was entitled, thus reducing the costs to 13s.

IMPORTANT. Wilson t. Waitoa HianwAT Boated.— Mr Whitaker appeared for plaintiff on behalf of Mr W McGregor Hay, in hia absence. This case, wh'ch was reoently heard, was an appeal from Major Wilson of Cambridge, against the rating by the Waitoa Highway Board, of leasehold property held by him. In giving judgment. His Worship eaid that he bad carefully gone over the authorities on the subject and though be might have given judgment at the time the case was heard he bad reserved judgment as there was some slight doubt in his mind. He now felt fully justified in the judgment he vaa about to give against the appeal, for he could see nothing in the Act to warrant him in making a distinction 'betweon freehold and leasehold property, and the question of occupation really settled the matter, rendering the appellant liable, Tlie appeal must therefore be dismissed with CDsts, the amount of 'the latter to be left an open question.