RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, WAIPAWA.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 5306, 13 February 1879, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, WAIPAWA.

Tuesday, February 11. (Before W. Rathbone, Esq., J.P., and R. Harding, Esq., J.P.) Thomas Long was charged by Constable Murphy with having used blasphemous language in a railway carriage at Kopua, contrary to the provisions of the bye-laws of the New Zealand railways. It having been proved that the prisoner had ovik dently contravened the bye-lawa under

which the information was, laid/ although' the praiseworthy modesty of the informant " " prevented a repetition of the actual -ex- ';, pressions usad, the Bench fined the cvl r ■ prit 20s, or in default' seven days' im- "'& priaonment with hard labor. '■■■'• ;. A charge of drunkenness was also ."^ brought against the prisoner, tdiwhioh toJ^.'^-V , pleaded -guilty': or he kh;ew nothiniftesfcel^ .-V jkinttary. 'As he elected td take theieveff W* %?% Pa; ,foe Bench 1 withheld- any further infliction. ' ' , > The Waipawa County dog .tax collectoif complained ,that Mr Reddy, of ", Woo- '."'/ ville, had not registered his dog 4s rei- - ' ■ • quired by- the Provincial Dog Nuisance ; -7 > The case had been adjourned, to afford -the- ddfendanj;., ati 'bpnortiinit^ oi | proving: that- lie had' register^ his. dc| wiimH the Provincial district., : ( ig. ( p failed in dofng so, tn» ]??hch fined'hioi '■' 20s, with coßts of Ooiirt, and' '2os fo^ solicitor's fee. Mr LasceJles appeared for '-" ■ , the complainant/'aiid Mr'liee for v tHe ' ''"' ! defendant. ■•• .'.;.,- „•;■ ;r.>-r;*.? •• ';,v"; '- r ."si • ■;!? <^^o Nine^ other complaints' i^ere^ ; made' v ' against unregistered dogs, which t w,ere all,;, -;^ undefended, the tax and costs 'being paid H !i ' in advance, ' •«••' :'>•« ?;7fr>.' xi/i-O'V"!-'.''--^^!; ' ::! ' ClVn CASES. r>|;;; <:*£ !:"/■'•* &Z± Nichols, v. Kelly.— Claim £8 ' iArA.; for pedlar's goods suppliejd. s Judgment^, '^J by default, with costs 365. ; ' '"' ' '.\t°) /'-■■ it -'M-*-\ -Stack V. Mackay.— The plaintiff was a %f'l daily labprer employed- by, the .defendant,; •. ? o?; No engagement or agreement' existedy and r' the. plaintiff left the service f of the de v fen- !^ ix , dant without any notice/ -The .faeiendßn#i'>'. complained that, by the.plaintiff- leaving;^/^ the work in hand without any^int|ination>i y™ > hehad caused considerablejoss, as'he''"wak' • *'-- one of a gang engaged^on 1 pafticulaf j?orK(3,» ; B ?/' The Bench admitted the hardship imposed on the. defendant by the,. ddnductjOltthei : plaintiff, jbilt-.^^as,, ab^pr ( d6f o^'nof^e.bfiluig^^^rexisted, judgment, was "given'^for^Y"" the. amdunt of wages due, and clajmedrfiy/ fit the plaintiff being £9u ; l2s/.6d ilf withoxii.'..J.^' ; L COStS. ' ■':■)}/■<"'//..,•,,.,> Cas^s .set down for hearing- above £20 ■ ?1 were adjourned to the next RiMiCottfty- sa to beheld'bh Marbh ll: iV ; ■-^'- i „,.. ;.;.., ■„,^ . Ward iv.; RU^sell.'^-This case: was 1 ad-V^ - journed to the Same i time > f or the r produc- ""< i ' tion of an important, witness. ... -. , '-«'■'