R M. COURT HAMILTON. Before W N Searthncke, Esq, R M, Chair. man, and T Seddon, E-q., J P. December 7, 1876.

Waikato Times, Volume X, Issue 700, 9 December 1876, Page 2

R M. COURT HAMILTON. Before W N Searthncke, Esq, R M, Chair. man, and T Seddon, E-q., J P. December 7, 1876.

Francis McGovern v. George Nash. — Mr Whi taker for defendant. This was un information laid by prosecutor, as Inspector of Biead, against defendant, a baker, with obstructing him in the execution of his duty. The iufurmation was withdrawn, defendant paying coats. Hinton v. Bauer. — Mr kia.y for plain tiff. Josheph Hiuton, iworn, I claim £2 4« from defendant. I have received no notice from him that he hat confessed judgment. Judgmeut for plaintiff, with coats, £i 5s 61. Mr Hay applied that the costs in the late case of Bauer v. Einton, in which judgment was given for plaintiff, might be attached, to meet costs in the preienticase, aa it was useleaa to expect to get them otherwise from defendant. Martin v Geo Hare.— Claim, £11 11s B'l, dishonored promissory vote There was no appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs, £1 3«. Martin v J R Lamb — Claim, £3 17« 4d, balance of dishonored P N and interest. No t>ppea>aace of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs. Crawford v Marun.— Mr Hay for Plaintiff. Claim, £2 6* 2. Defendant denied liability, saying that the debt was due by his employer, who had givea him an o der for the meat, in payu.eat of wages. Mr Hay contended that the order must be pioduced. Defendant sworn, stated he was a farm laborer, residing at T .mahere. I rtceived the meat now claimed, for an order given mo by my employer, a native, Tv Akarina The ord*-r was a written one I gave it to Mr Ciawfor.l. It was in Maori. 1 took the order out in different portions of meat. No pi ice was mentioned to me. I drew the meat on the order. I was to be fouud by my employer in food. To Mr Hay — 1 dont recollect either the date I first got meat from Mr Crawford, or how much 1 q >t, as it was no interest of mi >c, not having to pay for it. Mr Crawford, when 1 presented the order, did not tell me that it wa* good for on» day only. Tenai Fononi stated that in February last defendant wus working at T.mahere, Tv Akaraia gate him a paper to get ino >t, who look it to plaintiff. The order was for one day. To the Court — Defendant got su^ur, flour, and tea from Tv akaruia. He vrni to get 4s a chain for doiug tue fence and his food — all except meat. He atked for the order for the meat from Akaraia taking a le*s quanti yof sugar, tea, and flour. Re-examined — The order was for the one occasion only. Thomas Hastie, a labouring man, said he worked for plaintiff. Kemembered defendant getting tlie m-at fro u Air Crawford, the amount charged is correct, and the prices are reasonable. The meat was sold to Martin on Ins own account. The Court was of opinion that defendant was Hot liable. Mr Hay took a non-suit. Dennes v Johns. — Mr Hay for plaintiff Mr Whitaker lor defendant. Mr Whitaker stited that in this caw application had been made to take the evidence of witn as s hero under the Sesident Magistrate's Evidence Act to be forwarded to Auckland whero the case will be tried on Thursday next. W Steele, a settler near Hamilton, doposed — I attended one of the Juno light entertainments, advertised to be jjiren at Hamilton East by plaintiff. I p»id 16i or 18* for a iamily ticket I considered the entertainment such a failuro that I did not go again. Mr Hay objected to iuch an opinion not coining from an expert, being given as evidence. The Court ruled that the objec'ion could not bo entertained, but thit a note of the objection being made should be taken by the Court. Examination resumed — I have seen lime-light and magic lantern entertainments before, but i^er saw one so bad. There was something wrong with the appaintus, destroy in.; the effect. About half the views disolred, the latier part wus acoinpltto failure. Have been to a gre»t number of entertainments, but that was the most wi etched tinpot uffair I have ever seen. Plaintiff mude several apologies foi failuie. I thought the ditcriptive lecture very poor. Mot boing a musical man I offer no opinion about the music. Cross-examined — I do not know th« subject matter of this action. 1 know nothing of the bargain between plaintiff and defendant. I know that the entertainment was no lecompense for the money I paid. I formed my opinion on comparison with different lime-light entertainments I huve eeen elsewhere. I did not get value for my money I did aay that the wheel of life was the only thing worth seeing. I wouldu't giro two p nee for it. Ido not know to whom the failure was attributable. The lecturer had to apologist) for wany of gas. I am not aware that defendant supplied the gas. S T Seddon, a farmer, residing at Kinkiriroa, deposed to buying ticket*, and attending the exhibition on the first and third nights. He did net go the second night, because he could not tell a man from a woman. When he couldn't do that bo oeagi d to take any interest in the performance. The light was too indistinct to distinguish obj 'ctt. The audience expressed great linpatifneo at the failure. The lecture wan a f ulure, for the lecturer describe 1 <»ne view while another view came before the audience. The Lime Light Exhibition collapsed. The musio was very good. The wrtnt-sa was coss-examined, but nothing new or material w«w exhibited, except, that on the third ni^ht, the entertainment was far better. It was fairly good on the third night. H S Davis, Congregational Minister, deposed*— l naw two of the eutertainmeuts, the third and fourth. Mr Johns called on me to borrow a lens. It was explained that the one used the first night waa cracked. I lent the leva to Mr John", ho ding him responsible for it. Mr Johm return* d the lens to me. The court adjourned till 7 o'clock, when thej evidence of Mr Yon Stunner waa taken. The depo-ut.ons of these witnesses will be forwarded to Auckland, where the case, Denuea v. Johns will be heard on Thursday next ia whijh the ptniutiff sues defendant fir the sum of £28, for Be r ees rend i« 1 in cairymg oat cert. in Lime Ligut Performances at Hamilton.

The Coitaob op Content Hotel, Victoiia and Hobson Streets, Auckland, W. B. Langbridse, Proprietor, hivmg been Enlarged and Improved, affords unequalled Accommodation, nnd will be found a Really, Well-appointed, F.rsfcolu« Hotel.— [A.DVT.]