MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Hot Lakes Chronicle, Volume 2, Issue 127, 26 June 1895, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

F RIDAY JITXE 21, [Bofere Lieut-'Col. Roberts, S.M.] On the Court assembling Mr J. R. Cowan, barrister and solicitor, submitted his certificate to the Bench entitling' hiui to plead and paid tlio necessary foe. Police Gases. Cruelty to a House.—Hono to Mumuku was chafgod with ill-treating a horse on Juno 8, by riding it while it was suffering from a sore back. Constable Carvanagh said the sore was an old one and the horse unfit to be ridden. F. E. Clarke, poundkeepor, and Adam Clarke, native constable, gave corroborative evidence. The defendant stated that it was only by riding about that day that the horse had got a sore back, and ho did not know that it was unlawful to ride the horse on that account. A fine of os was imposed and costs amounting to Hs. Breach of Registration Act.—For neglecting to register the birth of a child a delinquent was fined 7s. Summons Cases. 11. Krr.x v. Javes Kelly.—This was a claim for £'i 3s 7M for meat supplied. Mr Cowan for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs (is. J. H. Taylob v. Carlyle.—ln this case plaintiff asked that an order obtained a year ago, un ler which defendant agreed to pay 10s per mouth, should bo enforced. R. I). Dansey, clerk to the Town Board was called and stated that the defendant had boon in constant employment, more or less, for the last five months, and on

and offerer since judgment was obtained. He earned 6sper day vhcn working, and last month he earned over £O. His AVorship stated that in a matter of tlii.s kind the Bench had to be extremely careful be* fore an order was enforced* In the present case the Court was not satisfied that the evidence showed defendant's ability to jT.iy. The plaintiff said that ho had 1 n led to bolicvo that Mr Danscy's evidence would be sufficient to prove his case andsubmitted that it had 1 n shown thai defendant was in receipt of more than the amount of the monthly order. EG Worship said that an adjournment could l>e obtained by paying costs. The plaintiff: 1 think that I have been treated hardly. His worship: Do you think you have been hardly treated by the defendant or by the Court? The plaintil: By the Court. Bos Worship: Then in that ease I think that yon in .»our position as a Justice of the Peace have no excuse for speaking in that manner. 1 feelstronghr inclined to speak to you very plainly in the matter. There is absolutely nothing before the Court to justify the order being made. If you understood your duty to the Bench, you would not have spoktin in the manner you have. An adjournment Was granted* till July 19th on payment of costs. Tobias v. Kesskaw.—Evidence was taken on c immission from Auckland in this case which was a claim for fO 17s -Id for goods supplied. W. Henshuw, the defendant, stated that lie had not ordered certain of tftfi goods in question, and in regard to others that he had been overcharged-. The deductions claimed totalle 1 £3 (is 7Ad; he admittcd'tho balance. Mr WainhoUSO also gave evidence. PICMTAXA I'KW'II.UK AX(M V. AkKKAI i:i:o : Claim i'a or the return of a horse, Mr Cowan for defendant. Mr Yates interpreted. After hearing much evidence of an uninteresting nature, judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed with posts (is. the latter only to lie paid if the horse be Returned. HtfvETA Ti: HAnKiioKo v. Curtis. Claim £~> or the return of a chestnut horse. Mr Cowan for plaintiff. Mr Yates interpreted. A deal of evidence was led of a contradictory nature by European and native witnesses-. Mr Cowan in addressing the Beneh pointed out the discrepancies in the evidence of tho witnesses tor the defence, and considered that defendant would have acted more straightforwardly in the matter if he had produi i-1 the horse in question as he had it in his possession. His Worship did not consider tic ovidonco strong enough to substantiate the plaintiff's-claim, and on tiro application of .Mr Cowan granted a non-suit with lis costs.against plaiutiff. Xoaiiaki v. MuiiUKu - . Claim £5 or the return of a chestnut hofsc branded KTR. Mr Cowan for plaintiff. Mr Yates interpreted. The plaintiff gave a very clear account of his ownership of the animal in question. It was foalod after the eruption and the brand K T 11 was made in Tuuranga; he owned the mother of the horse* Oilier witnesses testified to the ownership. The defendant .stated the horse was given away by the owner along with other goods at a taua; he afterwards obtained it from those to whom it had been given. Other witnessos corroborated tins. His worship s! ited thai iio Opgnisapcc could be taken of the prietice which attended t mas ami gave judgment'for plaintiff with 15s costs, £1 Is professional costs'and L'l Is interpreter's fee: the horse to be given up by defendant.