RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HAMILTON. Wednesday.—(Before Mr H. W. Northcroft, R.M.) CIVIL CASES.

Waikato Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1999, 30 April 1885, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HAMILTON. Wednesday.— (Before Mr H. W. Northcroft, R.M.) CIVIL CASES.

Skyekai, Propel ty Tax cases weie disposed of. Scorr AM) Cok v. HARTXKrr, claim fclj (is (id, judgment summons. Oideied to p.iy the whole .iniount, in default <nn' month's luipiwiiiuumt. J. MuuiN \. McCunf, claim £1 10s. Judppnujit for pi liuttff with costs. Wmkmo Times v. Jamks Huitsr, claim £2 10s. Judgment for amount, with C °jC'O. Bkvlk v. C. Hall, claim £2 w lid Judgment for £1 5s lid and cost-. Mr H.iy for plaintiff. itUFVKIVf. WINDOWS. Three little boys residents of Hamilton Hast, were charged with breaking the win dows in a cottage near the Masonic H.ill on the loth inst. After hearing the evidence, which was somewhat contradictory, the bench administered a severe caution to the youthful offendenand discharged them, MAINrKNANCK. On tho application of Anne (Jage the court made an order calling on the husband of the applicant, James Gage, to provide for her support. LkQuksnk v. Beam?, claim €30, foi injiuy to horse and medical attendance on same. Mr Hay for plaintiff, and Mr O'Neill ! foi defendant.— Mr Hay opened the case by leading the particulars of demand, and on a suggestion from his Worship, to shorten the case, stated his contentions as follow. He had two points, on both of which he felt assured that tho evidence and the law would be with him. I. 1 That there was legal negligence on the part of the defendant in the management of the horse, and this would be kliowiv by the evidence, but he contended that it was not absolutely necessary for him to piove any, oven supposing the defendant to have been borrower of the horse fioin plaintiff. 2. That the plaintiff was not a borrower of the horse, and there was no prnity of contract between them. It would be proved that Mr W. LeQncsnc lent the hoi he to the defendant, not only without tho authority but against tho peneial oiders of plaintiff. In that case the defendant was a mere trespasser in taking tho horse, as the lender had exceeded liis authority in lending him to another. Tho reason was plain that a man might have full confidence in lending his lior»e to one man, but that did not justify the horse being lent to another, in whom he might have no confidence. Mr Hay called Mr P. LeUtietno, who deponed to tho ownership of the horse, to thb value, and to his not having authorised Mr W. LnQiiosne to lend him, but on tho contrary hid given him instructions not to lend any of his horses. Mr W. LoQuesno doposed to having lent the hoi so to defendant without his father's authority, and to having at first lof used to lend him, but on being assured that the horse would bo properly managed ho lent him. Ho stated also the course of treatment tho horse had undergone after the 'nj ll| yAt this stago the cmut wan adjourned until 10 o'clock thin morning.