RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XX, Issue 3939, 30 June 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, June 29,

(Before R. Stuart, Esq., jH DRUNKENNESS. -w_.^H Edward Robinson, arrested for drunkeiK ! MHH ness, but who was allowed to be at large VH on depositing £1 in lieu of bail, did no'a^H appear when called, and his bail mone- DHP| was ordered to be forfeited. . -^^hH OBTAINING MONEY UNDER FALSE FKa T2M|^HH[ George Scoates was charged with S^^^^^B obtained from Mr Woolston, of WaipaUH^H the sum of £31 3s on false pretences. On the case being called, Mr Lee ap- V^B plied for a remand on the ground that g| Mr Sheehan, who was engaged for the prosecution, was not prepared to proceed with it, the prisoner having only been. g| arrested on the previous day. ". jM The Clerk of the Court suggested that ■ the case should be remanded to Waipawa, jt as the offence was committed there, and " the prosecutor was resident in township. His Worship concurred in Mr Guy's view. _^» Mr Lee hoped Ins Worship would not reniand the case to Waipawa, as there was no certainty of getting the attendance there of justices of the peace, and there was no suitable place for keeping a prisoner locked up. The witnesses in the oase, Mr Lee added, were in Napier. His Worship ultimately consented to remand the prisoner until Monday, the case to be heard in Napier. ALLEGED BREACH OF THE STAMP ACT. Joshua Cuff was charged on the information of Mr Fielder, Deputy-Com-missioner of Stamps, with having committed a breach of the Stamp Act. On the case being called Mr Filder appliedto, have it adjourned, as he had received a telegram from Mr Cuff staging that he would arrive in Napier from ■ Poverty Bay in the Wanaka. The case was accordingly adjourned to Monday next. LINDSAY V. NEWMAN. These three cases were again called, but Mr Sheehan, who was retained for Mr Lindsay, did not appear. Mr Sainsbury said that when the cases were called last Tuesday he was not present, being under the impression that they were set down for Friday. Mr Sheehan had appeared then, and had got the cases adjourned. But really he (Mr Sainsbury) did not see what the Court had to do with the cases. They had been referred to arbitration, and ail award had been given. The matter had, in fact, been settled, and though it was stated that there was a question of costs not determined, so far as the Court was concerned there was no question of the kind before it, as all the costs of the Court had been paid. However, he did not wish to take any advantage of Mr Sheehan, and would therefore a3k his Worship to adjourn the cases. His Worship consented, and the' cases were adjourned until Monday next. LEVOI V. MADDEN. ~-^ Claim for £13 B&HQ:,.sai jtpromissor note. Defendant admitted that nY hat signed the promissory note, but stated that the goods for which the note was.V given were not worth more than £5. He had signed the note before he had received the good's, laving been urged to do so by the plaintiff. Judgment for the amount claimed, with 30s costs. Mr Lascelles was for the plaintiff. BOYLAN AND CO. V. GARDINER. Claim for £4 3s. Bd. Defendant admitted the debt, but pleaded inability to pay. Judgment for the amount claimed, with 13s costs. . . l - ACKLAND V. THOS. HAWKINS. Claim for £10 10s. . Mr Lascelles was for plaintiff. Defendant did not appear. There being no affidavit of service of the summons, the case : was adjourned to Friday next. * v LASCELLES V. BETTER. Claim for £7 16s\ 8d for professional services. Defendant did not appear. Judgment for the amount claimed, with 19s costs. \. CUNNINGHAM AND GEFFORD <V. ■WELLS. Claim for £21 7s, for bala&ce of account *«>. work done to a 'house in £&gWhitedence was so exceeSm 6v — _"*y \ • render it difficult to arrive at a decision. The plaintiffs, however, had the advantage not only in the number of witnesses, but in the fact that they produced in in Court a sample piece of the galvanised iron used for the roofing and a piece of the zinc with which it was patched.' ' His Worship said that it would have been better if the matter had been settled by arbitration. As, however, it had been brought in to Court, he felt bound. to decide according to the weight of evidence, and it was against the defendant. Judgment for the amount claimed, with £6 12s costs. JESSOP V. CARTWKIGHT. This was a judgment summons on a _ judgment for £3. Defendant was ordered >- to pay the debt by weekly instalments of J 10s each, or in default of any single payment, to be imprisoned for one month. - BAGLEY V. PARKER. CMi.i for £18 lls 7d. Defendant did not appear. Judgment for the amount claimed, with 19s costsl