R.M. COURT, ROTORUA

Waikato Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 3186, 24 November 1892, Page 2

R.M. COURT, ROTORUA

Vrioay.— (Before R. S. Bii3l>, Esq., R,M.) E. Douglas v. Stanley Robinson.—Maintenance of illegitimate child, Mr Humphreys appearing for complainant.—Defendant was arrested at Auckland on the 14th inst. fin warrant and was brought up before the Court and remanded to appear at Kotorua on the IStli inst,, he being also admitted to bail, himself in £20 and ono snivty of £20. Defendant did appear, and admitted his liability —He was ordered to pay arrears, about £30, and 10.-s per week until the c'lihl arrived at the ae». of 14 years and tu find two sureties of £250 each. The sureties were duly forthcoming, but the matter did not end her , , the sequel being a iiv re haopy one for all concerned. While Mr Dansey the clerk of the Court—who also held the position of Registrar—was preparing the necessary recognizances papers, the matter was being very quietly and muro happily arranged by thu paities most concerned, the young people tlujnuelves, and before the afore-aid papers were completed Mr Dansey was called upon t> adjourn to his other office, wherj ho performed the very clever und intPivsting feat of making two people one. It may therefore be said that this int?reatirigr case was very pmnerlv settled mit "f dmrt. Civil Cases.—Severil debt cises were settled according to their merits.—A e-ise was brought by J. P. Raiikin against Constable Murray, who also acts as Bailiff, claiming damages to extent o< one shilling. This case was expected to be rather interesing, as it w.y known that the Constable had simply in accordance with his duty executed a warrant of distress on the good's and chattels of the plaintiff. The case however only occupied the Court a fww minutes, as, when the Constable produced the warrant it was iininedi >te!y .-truck out, plaintiff paying his own costs. IntkiiplkaiiekSl'mmoss.— This was taken out by Mr F. C. Clarke, claiming .i horse, The lirrse in question had been seized by rhe baili/f under the warrant mentioned in the cisp last referred to. The horse was considered t> be rather a valuable animal, but nevertheless Mr Clark on his oath stated he had purchased the horse trom Mr J. C. Rankin for the sum of £1, and in support of his statement he produced a receipt for the amount dated the 29th September, 1802, and signed by Mr Rankin. Mr Ruikin also guvs evidence on oath, stating that he had sold the horse to Mr Clarke on the date mentioned for £1. Both these witnesses were cross-examined at considerable length by Mr Humphreys, but they both maintained that it was a bona fide sale. Mr Henry Batt also gave evidence, but only as to hraring a conversation between Clarice and Rankin. Against the interpleader Mr Humphreys called Constable Murray, whn stated that on Monday, the "tli November, he found the horse in question in the Pukeroa Reserve, and seized it under distress warrant, believing it to be the property of Mr Rankin. He sent for Mr Clarke, whn keeps the key of the gate of the reserve, and on Mr Clarke's arrival the constable explained tin; matter to him, and Mr Clarke then s.aid that thi-= was rather awkward, and that lie (Clarke) had lent Rankin £1, which was to be paid before the horse was taken away. He (Clarke) did not say anything about having purchased the hoisp, or about having a receipt. The constable took the horse d"«vn to the police station. The constable gave further evidence that on Saturday, the sth November (two days befnw the seizure of

the horse), he had a conversation with Mr Rrinkin, and tho constable went to lnok at the horse. Mr Rs.nkin stated then that ho would not part with tho horse under any consideration ; that he hud been ntfenvl two other valuable horses fur him, but fuel refused the offer. This closed the case, and the R.M. decided that, from the sworn evidence of (jlarke and Rnnkin, and Che production of the receipt, the horto >im*t be considered Clarke's property.

IH.UA Tk WaRAI V. JToROMO.VA Paraonk.—This was an action for pies killed and destroyed. Mr Humphreys for the defendant. The plaintiff (?«>e evidence at ereat length, statins that he owned all the pies in the part of the country where he lived-viz., Wnintapii—and he charptmi the defendant with havinif killed

about one hundred odd, claiming £.';">. The evidence was, however, not verv clear, and on the next witness beine c-illed for the plaintiff, there ivjh a complete boil over, the witness (a native) swearing that he (the witness) himself had killed a lot of the pigs, and that the defendant had not killed anv. This apparently distrusted the plaintiff, and he withdrew the cise, having to pay costs, £4 11s,