RESIDENI MAGISWAIE'S COURT, NGAHU WAHIA.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 3039, 7 January 1892, Page 3

RESIDENI MAGISWAIE'S COURT, NGAHU WAHIA.

(Before Capt. Jackson, R.M.)

Welch v. I>vrll.— Infm-mati n f.T tbreatenint; language, with intent ti provoke a breach of tlie peace. Inf rmant appeared in piT<on. Mr VV. M. Hav for defend-nt. The witnesses called by informant did nut entirely support his own evHnnce as to the intorit'and other matter* MrH.y raised several objections to a cunvi. tioii heing recorded, the | rin-ioal one heing that tho onen bar "f a public house wa« not a public pla':e within tlie meaning :>f the section under wh'ch the information was laid.— Cas" dismissed. Hill v. Mitchell.—Cl-iira £5. for 10.000 shingles. Dnfetdant paid in £4 10s. and disputed having received or ordered tlie Innth t lonsand shingles.—Judgment for plaintiff with costs. Mitchell v. Hohia Ngahiwi.—Claim £49 for balance due on contract for building a houao at Ta'ipirt. Mr Hay for plaintiff, Mr O'Neill tor defendant. The plaintiff and Mr T. H White were examined in support of tho claim, snri the defend nit, and his grand riaueht r. Pare Ne»hiwi for the defence. The evidence c-ino'uded shortly aftev 10 o'clock p.m., and the K M. reserved his judgment which «a< by cons, nt g wn at Hamilton yestprday. Tho judgment was for £15 with cos's, £2 10s, the cl >iin forextras £4 beingdisallowtd.

Prohibition Obuers.—An order waa male in her absence against Jane Goodwin on her daughter's application. An order was applied for against George Goodwin by Mh Moffit. Mr Hay appeared for the respondent. A 1 area number of person gave evidence but c uld not fix any recent dates on which the respondent had been seen under the influence nf liquor excepting Boxing Day. A notorious character named Moffit, who was examined, was very vehement in his behaviour and caused some merriment by saving that the lata ft.M. (Mr N'Tthcrnft). had a great regard for him and had said th -t he (Mr N.nther .It) womd be proud to stand in Ins shoes at am time. The defence was a denial of excessive drinking and t' at the proceedings were brought by M> Hit and hi-* wifo nut of spite. Mr H >y applied f..r in arijoornment to t ike the evidence of the respondent's wife, wh" was unable to heirwent. This was grinned and the cise a 1 journey) for two months. Toe M Hits applied f.ir cists and wtra refused.