R.M. COURT, CAMBRIDGE.

Waikato Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1608, 24 October 1882, Page 2

R.M. COURT, CAMBRIDGE.

Friday. --(Before Mr H. W. North croft, KM.) Civil Oases. In the debt case, T. Wells r. Gibbins, neither plaintiff nor defendant appeared. Camp v. Varexwvo.— Judgment debt of £13 2s sd. Defendant was unable to attend the Court through illness, and as there was not sufficient evidence brought forward by plaintiff to make an order upon, the case was adjourned till next Court day. In the following cases judgment was given for plaintiffs w ith costs :— T. Hoy v. M.uligan, claim, £3 17a Id, costs £1 13s 6d ; Hough ton i>. Teuetito, claim, £28 Ss ]od, costs £1 10s ; Same v. Napier, claim, £11 10s 7d, costs £ I 14s 6d ; Asher v, Geo. Cook, claim, £6 2s (sd, costs £1 375. In the case W. A. Richardson v. F. Cook, for £7 Bs, rent due, judgment was deferred. In the case Hally i\ Te Puke, the case having been withdrawn by plaintiff, the Bench allowed solicitors' costs £3 3s for defendant. Sylvester Nutter v. Harry Symonds, claim, £19 8s 6d for wages. Mr Dyer for plaintiff and Mr Keesing for defendant. In this case it appeared that the plaintiff, Nutter, applied to the defendant for work at ploughing and ditching at his place at TVaotu. Defendant started plaintiff to work without any stipulation as to wages, the only agreement come to being the plaintiffs' willi higncss to leave the matter of wages to his employei* to decide when the work was finished. The work having been finished defendant offered to pay his employe 30s a week, deducting 25s from this amount for board, the work not having been done to his pleasure. Witnesses were called to prove that plaintiff did not do the woj k which he had engaged to do, and that part of his time he was either drunk or idle. It was also stated that other natives had to be employed to complete 1 the work. For the defence plaintiff stated he had been busy during his stay at Waotn, and had done not only his own woik, but had acted as cook and stableman. Had never been diunk, and was never idle, excepting during rainy weather. Judgment was gi\en for plaintiff for £S, with costs £3 Is Gd.

A Pugilistic Swamper. Michael Murphy, a swamper, was charged on the information of Constable Brennan, for having, on Thursday evening last, created a disturbance in Dukestieotwhen diunk, by fighting with a number of natives. Constable Breninin stated that on the previous evening he saw accused fighting with a number of natives near the Masonic Hotel, he being the originator of the quanel. There were no pvevious convictions against accused, who was usually of a quiet disposition. Accused had nothing to say in extenuation. Fined 10s, with costs 7s.

Assaulting the Night watchman. John Arnold was charged on the information of one Charles Hassett, for that ho <lul, on the 17th October List, at Cambridge, unlawfully assault the said Charles Hassett by striking him on the face. The complainant fearing furttier violence asked to have Mr Arnold bound over to keep the peace. Mr Keesing for complainant and Mr Dyer for accused. — Complainant stated that on the evening of the day in question he was at tue National Hotel, when ho was accosted by accused, who called him "an old loafer," and struck him ■without further provocation. — By Mr Dyer : Was niirht watchman, and was biipposod to protect the town against tiro. Went into the hotel tor a ill ink and was followed by Mr Arnold, Did not call accused a b thief, nor give him any provocation whate\ or. Lost a quantity of blood. — Ueoi ge Neal was called, and deposed to having seen Arnold strike at H.issctt, and the latter lai&ed his stick by way of defence. Hassott bad as>ked him to have a drink sevtral timos, which lie declined. Mi Arnold told Hassetfc he had no business there, he being night watchman. Hassett told Arnold he would ring his nose for him. —Henry Atkins was present at the National Hotel on the evening of the row. Saw Arnold sti ike Hassett on the eye. Heard no provocation on Hassett's part. This clo&cd the case for the complainant. - For the defence, Arthui lienton was called aud deposed to having heard Arnold threaten to stiike Has&ett for having called him a b • thief. Afterwards saw the row between the paities. Hassett gave no provocation that he was awaie of. — The Bench consideied the assault proved, and inflicted a fine of 10s with costs, £2 18s. Accused was also bound over to keep the peace for six months, himself in £25, and two sureties of £10 each.

The Masonic Hotel Housebreaking Case. A native youth named Te Rakatu was charged on tiie infonnafcion of Constable Brennan for that lie did on the 13th inst. unlawfully and feloniously break into and enter the hotel of Francis Hose, at C.unbridge, and steal and take away money to the amount of about 30s. Mr Dyer appeared for the accused. Fiancis Rose -was called and deposed that on the morning of the 13th inst. he retiied to bed about 12.30 a.m., having previously locked up the bar of the hotel. Left about 35s in silver and coppers in the bar overnight. Was wakened by a man m the morning vho told him that the b-ir had been broken into. Went downstairs to the bar and saw one of the front windows broken, and the clasp of the window moved. Discovered on examining the bar that all the money was gone with the exception of two threepenny pieces. Subsequently informed the police of the occurence. Accused some days previous wanted to buy his (witness's.) buggy and horses.— By Mr Dyer : Was wakened about) 4 I o'clock by the person who first discovered the affair. Accused had agreed to pay him £110 for the buggy and horses.— By the Bench: Could not identify any -of the money taken. — Denis O'dLaiujhliu, barman in the employment of the previous witness, deposed to having handed the bar over to Mr Rose on tlie night preceding the burglary. On leaving the bar had left about 7s or 8s in threepenny pieces in the till. One of the threepenny pieces had a hole in it near the edge, and the edsre was somewhat cut and battered. Thought he would know the coin again. Another piece was blaok on one side. The witness then picked out from a number of threepenny pieces the two which he had described. — By Mr- Dyer : Would swear positively that the threepenny piece produced was one" which must have beiui in the* till when robbed. The other one he could not positively swear to. The pieces identified were in the till when he left the bar oji the previous n'ght — ; Win, Flynn,, another* barman at the Masonic Hotel, deposed to' having noticed accused enter, the bar several times on the evening preceding the occurrence. He had got up on. the counter and looked over 1 at, the money on the shelf, and explore the situation of the till. 1 ' Could identify one' of the /three-,' penny pieces produced as one which ( had been in tlie till on' %\\e. evening in' question. ,Both he.aud the { ,prev|cms witness had remarked Ihe two pieces identified to each othe^r, f durmg/the dayj'and cpiise- r quently I were',,abTe',,to ? i||eniify .them,—' victor .Granville' deposed' tjijit' the' ac-, cused had come into Jus ms ,shop on tb£ morning^ $f .> tlie "4M*'fcsta«>s/ spent wyi^wnßersfajid % tyreepeifty

pieces.— Wm Kincaid stated that accused had enteied his shop early on the- morning of the occurence and paid him £1 on account in half-crowns. Accused subsequently returned and changed four threepenny pieces for a shilling. After an interval he pulled out ten threepenny pieces and got 2s Gd for them. After another interval he pulled out four more and got Is for them, making in all 4s 6d in threepenny pieces. Among these were the two pieces identified by the barman.— Constable Brennan gave evidence as to the arrest. —On searching accused after arrest he found on him a halfcrown, six single shillings, five sixpences, one threepenny '.Jece, and 16 coppers.— L. Caniachan deposed to having, after accused's arrest, charged him with the' offence in Maori. At this stage of the case His Worship, after considering the nature of the evidence, did not think it necessary to go any further into the case, ami in disclaiming accused said he thought the evidence as to the identification of the coin was somewhat too fine. The barmen ho considered had sworn too positively to the coin being the same as that which they had handled, on the previous day. Accused was accordingly di&cliarged.