R.M. COURT, TE AWAMUTU.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 2644, 22 June 1889, Page 3

R.M. COURT, TE AWAMUTU.

Wednesday.—(Before Capt, Jackson, K.M.) CIVIL CASKS, J. L, Mandeno, Liquidator Te Awamutu Cheese and Bacon Eaotouy Company, v. Sheka.—Claim, £2(i 5s Id. The amount was paid into Court last Court day, but not till after the Court rose, and an adjournment was asked for and granted. Plaintiff claimed U adjournment fee. As this would carry 15s hearing fee, and such being heavy costs for 4s, plaintiff agreed to withdraw the case. ~,,,-, „ J, \V. Ellis v. U. M. Cameron.—Mr Cre'sham for plaintiff. Judgment for £2 15s (id, and costs 17s (id. Same v. James Kamsay.—Mr (Jresharn for plaintiff. Judgment for £3G 03 lid, and Vhatus v. Given.—Mr Dyer for plaintiff and Mr (.resham for defendant. Claim for wages, £o la 3d. Judgment for 2s 4d beyond amount paid into Court by defendant, and solicitor's fee, 10s Od. criminal cases. Kairbmn Egglostone was charged, on the information of Constable Borriman, with a breach of the (.faming and Lotteries Act by raffling a f?iin at Otorohanga on the 2 ( rh May. Defendant (a native) pleaded guilty, but was not aware of the gravity of the oHjiico. J'med £2, and costs lis. _ Jan (jlmu-selusg,—John Hetit wua

charged, on (lie information of Constable Berriman, with a breach of the Licensing Act by selling a glass of nun to outs Alexander P-ruy at Otort.hanga on the 28th May. Constable liorriman prosecuted. Mi' Dyer for defendant. Defendant pleaded not guilty.— Hopnno, a native constable stationed at Otorohanga, was the first witness examined, and he deposed to going into defendant's temperance hotel with Alexander Bray ou the 28th May and drinking a glass of ruin. He and Bray each drank a glass of rnui, Bray tendered a half-sove-reign. Saw defendant hand back some silver in change to Bray. A number of natives and Europeans were the worse of liquor during that day. Thoy got the liquor there. A considerable amount of ovidenco was taken, and various points raised by Mr Dyer.—The Court,_ in giving judgment, laid stross on the points raised by Mr Dyer in his address, and said there was a doubt as to the sale, which he would give defendant the benefit of. He would, therefore, dismiss the case, at tho same time cautioning the defendant that if ho was brought before him for soiling liquor without a license and the case was proved, he would punish him severely.