R M COURT Friday

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXXII, Issue 5726, 29 January 1876, Page 1 (Supplement)

R M COURT Friday

llDl.MTM lol< Pi UNHl^s _J. MulJ.il\ v. A riotdiot, rlaim £- r ) 10s Oil. ; Mi Laishley for plaintift. This was an ipphca tion iiiiilot tlio (15 th section of the Ail Judument for ill 14s Oil J. Yoiinu' \ .1 ]Mnii.iy, claim £7 10s. llil, mone\ hnr. >Ti liobinson foi plaintifl ; \V Smith \ C Foness, cl.iim L"2 1-sJ . f<>» boaul, &c : I Young \ J. Francis, claim £(> 18s., Mr Robinson for plaintiff, costs 11 l ( )s :K ■) King v. .) Worm", claim 0s , cost"? 1 1- : Biown, Baiiett, .incl Co. v. L. Wilson, cl.inn £lf> 17s 3d., costs £1 0s ; J. Dcmpsey \ C Searlc, claim £ 113s. (id., board. &c , costs £1 4s (id., Mi. Laishlcy for plaintifl; J. Wan en v .). Aunstiong, claim L'l fi Is !U1 . on an 1 0 U , Mr Thome for plamtiil, costs £2 Gs. ; N. A. Close v J Aimstiong, cluin £41 10s. Sd , on a piomissory nott , nuts £3 12s , Mi Richmond for plaintiff. JoDi.VFM Pi in on Si'mmonsps 1s-lih — Vealc v Prioi, I!, ind W. Hcllabj *>■ < ; Feint, £4 KSs !)d , costs 4s Od. ; \\ urant to issue to commit if debt bo not paid within thirty days. Sj i:i ( k Oi i. — E Whelcli v. W. Bin h man, 11.") 3s. 3d., goods ; costs, £1 K Mi Dufaurfoi defendant, plaintifl did not ap pear. — f. F. Churton A. FleUhei , < hum, £1 4s. (3d.; costs, Ob. No appeal anec Ai)iori;Nrn — E. T'oitcr and Co v. It. Stevenson ; claim, £12 10a 3d., goods Mi LaiBliley foi plaintiff, Mr. Thome ioi <le feudant. M. Sum i kwiik \. II. H. Smiim. — ( hum, £4 ; costs, IDs. (id In this case pl.unt.iil agreed to take £4 .",•». as a settlement in lull, and the amount was paid into Coiut. •JumiMLMs Com issed.-J. Biennan \. G. Kirton; claim, £4 0». 9d., foi boaul &.c ; costs, !N — 11 Kohn v T. lloian ; clai ln/ {;<) 17s. (id ; costs, 13b. J. Ui in \. It. FJikns.— Claim, 10s, use and occupation. In this case phuntill ton ml that defendant's name was liobeit Byion, and he had t here f oi e decided to allow the case to fall through — Case shuck out J. Collins \. It. MrYi:v(.H.— Claim, £15, for loss of a dog by poison. — This was an application to take c\ ideuce — Mi . ) M Tunny, Provincial Analyst, deposed- I iceeived a jar fioni Hamilton containing the stomach of a dog in No% ember last. I pon examination, I found the stomach contained a laige amount of undigested food, and upon making an analysis I found tiaces of stiyeh nine in sufficient quantities to cause death The stomach being full, the action ot the strychnine must have been slow. The dog might have lived for seveial houis, and might have been able to tiavel some distance before dj ing Had the stomach been empty, death must have oeeiuied in thue or ioni minutes after taking it Ciiuuis 1'iiia \. J. Fisian.— Claim, £',] los., for one week's wages and wages foi woikmg on one Nun day. — Air. Laishlcy for defendant — L'laintiff deposed th.it on the 24th De eember last he was engaged by Mr. Fishei to do the caiting at £2 10s. per week. l>efendant paid him iriegukuly on dilleicnt da\&. Was discharged by Mi 1'ishei s foi emau without notice He now sued foi the amount due, including one week's notice, and one day's wages foi a upon winch he woiked — Cioss-cxannned by Mr. Laishlci, : Could not ha\e done the Sunday caitmg on the Satuiday. - Had distinct ordcis to do it on the Sunday. — Mi. I aishley stated tint the defendant hidie sisted the claim because he legaided it as an imposition — David Teuton, defendant's foi cman, deposed that plaintiff was nuicl\ engaged by the day until Mmth, the ugu'ai 'arter, had lecovcied fiom an illness. The woik chaiged for as Sunday woik should have been done on the Satuiday. Ne\ei knew .Sunday woik to be chaiged foi hcfoie dining the tune he had been in Mi I'isIri's seiviee. Ne\erkiiew Mr. Fishei to dispute a just claim. — Cios-j-e\aniined by plaintiff Smith, the other eaiter, used to cart the bones on a Sunday. — John Fisher deposed that he had authoiised his foi emau to engage a man tiom day to day, and to pay his wages eveiy night Witness told Klloy ftluo that the cnga^r ment would be troni day to da}. The cartage on Sunday was simply to lemove the Satuiday night's refuse to "tlio janb — V,\ plaintitt 1 did not engage \oii at £J Ht> per week. 1 did not tell jou to take out the bones on a Sunday — B\ Mr Lai»lih} I ncvei paid a sunilai claim foi i\ woik. — Judgment for dttendant; m-t\ 20s Inl J^ ,) Kl\(. \ T.I*. 11 VNN'UOIII) — I lull), 10s, foi hue of a carnage on .lanuan 17th, Ih7.">. ha a wedding — Mr. J. L5. Kussell toi pkuntiir — K .1. King deposed tli.it "ii tin occasion in question defendant had oidcud him to get up his caniage m In^tilass st\Ie, witli the usual white glo\es and iaxouis. The ch.ime was a tair and i< isoiiable one. He always chaiged £1 on mu Ii occasions, and e\tia it the pu ties won taken foi a dn\e after the solemni/ation of tin m teicsting tt lemony. — Judgment Joi plaintill ; costs, £1 17s. A. SihWAKD \. B. MoDosvli) — Claim, £10, fi>r tiespass.— Mr. J. 13. Kussell for plaintiff, and Mr. Kissling for defendant. — When this ease was called the respective solicitors letned outside, and, after a consultation, announced that the matti r had been settled. Tuuviyi Ih an, Bell, andCo. v. O'Nru r — Claim, £1.1 la , for goods. — Air. Kissling fni plaintiff, and Mr. J. B. Russell for defendant. - Mr Russell took several prelnnuiiiiy objections -first, contending that the quantity of liquor alleged to have been sold to defendant was in excess of the quantity authoiised by the wholesale publicans' license; and second, that Mr. T. Maeffarl.inc,the nominal plamtitl.had ( lc«ul> dehned the duiacti'i' in which he sued With lespect to the fust, Ins Woiship said that the claim to sue tor the quantity supplied could not be barred by the faet of its being ui excess of the quantity allowed by the license; but the proper couise would be for the penalties to be afterwards imposed As to the second objection, any amendment tliat might be necessary could !>o made dining the adjournment. It was agreed that the ewdenee of certain witnesses, who had come from a distance, should be taken — James Blown, formerly storeman to Ityan, Bell, and Co., lesiding at Pokeno Hill, do posed to the goods ha\ ing been supplied, and to their having been addiessed by defendant's older to a Mr. AIcGroggin, stew aid of the s fa. 'Southern Cioss. Fie was not sine whetlui the defendant sud, " 1 will be icsponsible ; I am lcsponsible " — The witness ssas cioss-examincd at some length by Mi. J. B Russell —The ease was adjourned until next Com t day.— The Coiut then rose