RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wednesday, 9th July. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.)

Jacobs v. Vivian.—A claim for £3, for board and lodging. Judgment by plaintiff by default for amount claimed, together with costs.

Keys v. Mallor.—A claim of £4, for goods supplied. Jiulgnunt for plaintiff by default for amount claimed, together with costs. David Bethune made application for the renewal of slaughter yard license. Mr Harris appeared for the applicant. Mr Stewart opposed the application on account of persons who were annoyed by the position of the yard kept by Mr Bethune. Mr Stewart said that the applicant was ft nuisance to the district, because, from his habits of life, residents were forced to keep their children from his presence. The road was also greatly damaged by the driving of his cattle, and the smell was very unpleasant in the hot weather, and as a neighbour he was very unruly, he was continually threatening to fight, and held out a. challenge to fight any

one for £10. He would call witnesses to prove these statements. David Bethune admitted having been brought before the Court for assault by Mr Forrester, but the Magistrate told the defendant that he should be ashamed of bringing such a case into Court; and had also been sued by a butcher, when the Magistrate decided that both, parties were in the wrong. He knew that complaints had frequently been made about him to the Police Inspector by two of the residents. But the Inpector had never made any complaint to him about the way in which he kept the yard. Mr Harris put in a petition signed by 89 residents in the district, testifying to the way in which Mr Bethune had conducted himself, and kept his yard, and prayed that the license might be granted. The Magistrate remarked that in keeping a slaughter-yard it was very desirable that everything should be kspt in order, and everything done to keep away unpleasant smells. The license was granted. Butler v. Spence.- -A claim of £1 5s sd, for butcher meat supplied at Caversham. Judgment for £1 4s. with costs.

Popham (as administrator in the estate of Alexander Garside, deceased) v. M'Kay.— The plaintiff claimed £18, being the value of a stack of oats detained by the defendant Mr M'Keay for plaintiff; Mr Harris for the defendant. It appeared that deceased had purchased the stack of oats from defendant in April last, while the price of oats was much lower than at present, the whole not be-'ng removed upon the death of Garside. M'Kay refused to allow the administrator to remove the rest; hence the action. The defendant swore that he had only received the sum of £1 os for the stack of oats, and £9 being the price bargained for. ' A witness, how? ever, swore that he was present when the purchase was made, and at that time Garside paid the defendant £i, for which he gave a receipt, and a few days after was present when Garside paid another suni of £5 and received a receipt as before. Both receipts were placed byj Garside in a small clasp purse. It also came out in the evidence of another witness that immediately after the death ot Garside this little purse, with the papers and other valuables it contained, were missing. The plaintiff, however,- after being asked by defendant to.have the matter settled, went over Garside's books with the defendant, and then the defendant gave a receipt to Popham which covered the whole of the transactions between the defendant and Garside, yet afterwards continued to detain the oats. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £15 and costs.

Cooper v. De Berg.—Plaintiff sued for 16s 6d, rent due and cash lent. Judgment for plaintiff for 14s, together with costs.

SCHOOL FOR COOKS. TO THE EDITOR.

Stn—The Council ihe other night got into a great stew over the subject of Scholarships to Girls. One hon. member— Mr Fish, I think— objected to the attentions of any Hterarv cook, fearing that he might be done brown before he was turned over or properly, basted. Now, sir, I quite sympathise with him, and would suggest that-he should cause a sum to bo put ou the estimates for the establishment of a School of Cookery. We have our School of Arts, our High School, and our Girls' School, why not, therefore, our School of Cookery ? It might be established in a comer of the University building, and if the practical illustrations were conducted between the hours of one and two the whole thing mkrhtbe made self-supporting; for 1 am quite sure all the gentlemen in town would patronise the establishment for luuch, and pay liberally to have our future housewives educated in this all-important branch of the Arts. I see by your paper to-day, such a school is now established in London, and why not here? Now, Mr Fish, the ladies of Dunediu expect you to carry out your convicbions.—l am, kc,