HAMILTON RM. COUKT[Beforc W. N. Searajtcke, Esq., U.M.; Patrtck Leslik, Esq., J.P. ; and W. Steble, Esq., J.P.]

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXVII, Issue 4234, 10 March 1871, Page 3

HAMILTON RM. COUKT[Beforc W. N. Searajtcke, Esq., U.M.; Patrtck Leslik, Esq., J.P. ; and W. Steble, Esq., J.P. ]

Civil Cases.— Joseph v. Major Hay : Claim, £9 18s., for clothing supplied to natives last mouth. J udgment for plaintiff with cost?. — Joseph v. Lane : Claim, £2 17s. Gd., goods supplied. Amount paid into Court. —Joseph v.Murray : Claim, £1 95. 4 d., goods supplied. Judgment confessed.- Webb v. Smith : Claim, £1 16%. Gd., fruit supplied. Verdict for plaintiff, to be paid in four months. — Heuton v. Bauer : Ol.iim, £1 sa. Defendant paid into Court 3 4s. lOd. Judgment for amount paid in. — Duncan v. Coleman : Claim, £1 17s, 61. Settled out of Court. BiiEUUtfo a. Dividing feitcc. — Samuel Teas was charged by William White with maliciously breaking down a dividing-fence. Defendant pleaded that ths fence was on his own land, and for his own convenience. — The i Boneh held the case proved, aud ordeicd Teas to put up the fence, and pay the costs. — Teas, in an exoile I sfcafco.told the Bench the judgment was unfair, when ho was removed by the police for conlenij-b of Court. — At tho ining of their Woiships, Teas was brought W<>ro tlnm, when he apologised, and wa,s duoharged with a caution. Alltjuj !) EuukzzlejlßNT - -Lionel J. Baker wa^> hi ought up on a w.xir.iut, charged m ith o:n')e^!i ig the sum of £1 I'Ss., the property of Mr. William Malcolm. There was a further charge of petty larceny against him. Piisoncr pleaded not guilty. — After hearing the evidence, the majority of the Bench decided on discharging Biker.— [Correspondent.]