HAWERA R.M. COURT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume IV, Issue 633, 25 October 1883, Page 2

HAWERA R.M. COURT.

Wednesday, 24th October, ■■ ■ ' (Before 0. A. Wray, Esq., 8.M.) . [ CIVIL CASES. Davidson v. Godfrey Phillips. — This was a judgment summons, and defendant was called upon to show rpason why he bad not satisfied a judgment of tHe court for £10 Is 6d, of which only £5 18s, had been paid.— Defendant said he could toos pay the money. He had. a wife and family to keep, and only, earned £1 a. week on an average. — It transpired that since the judgment bad b.een given — viz., in 1877— he had purchased a section of land for £35, and bad built a house at a cost of £80 or £40 ; "but this was, mortgaged for £60. He said he might be able to pay 10s a month.-MOrdeF.made for payment of 10s a month, v . , . . 1 Heywood v. Hibba. — Judgment summons. The amount of the judgment was £3 178., and it appeared from the evidence of plaintiff, and Mr. J. Livingston that defendant was a carpenter in receipt of g'dod Wages. Money to be paid within a fortnight or defendant to be imprisoned. Way, v. Scott.— Claim . for £4 205,, painting &c. judgment far plaintiff by default. . „ Boyd v. Cooper. — Claim, for 19s.' 3d," goods delivered. Judgment for plaintiff by default. Roskrnge Estate v. Lambert. — Claim for £7 10s v Mr. Caplen for plaintiff, Mr. Hutchison' for defendant.- Mr. Caplen applied for leave to withdraw, and explained that really the -action should have been brought against tbe Minister of Public Wprks.^butas it was difficult 6> serve that gentleman, the action bad been brought against the station master in the hope that the matter would be settled. However, as the action bad not the desired effect he desired t>Q withdraw, and should have done co last court day, had there been a sitting. Mr. Hutchison objected to the withdrawal and claimed judgment for defendant and asked for costs. The Magistrate said there could be no coster except costs of Court, which had paid. Mr. Hutchison said defendant had been put to expense before, the case was oalled on. The Magistrate said be could not recognisesuch, costs. Judgment for defendant without costs* ' , . . Cheyne v. Southey andhW&lyt — Claim for ia l£s.. Mjr. Capten for defendants.

This- case arose out of an brctewivea to plaintiff by a workman of defetiajants'. Defendants did not deny their habHity, having accepted the order, whioh^w^borißed them to pay Mr. Cheyns so much on the drawer's account from time to time, but pleaded that a oertaimram oi money had been paid, and that no more was yet due. — Plaintiff, on the other hand, contended that the i&oney spoken of was paid on a different bran's account. — The evidence was conflicting, but tbe magistrate thought the probabilities were in favor of defendants, and gave judgment for defendants. He regretted that the case should have come into court at. all, seeing that' defendants were quUd willing to pay the money, and a littlejconsultation would nave got overtbe difficulty. Moriarty v. Casey and Casey v. Moriarty. — This was an action and a cross action arising out, of a long series of neighbors quarrels.— Mr. Caplen appeared for Moriarty, and Mr. Hutchison for Casey. — The cause of complaint on this occasion was peculiar. Eaeb party has a bull, and each party is annoyed by the other's bull trespassing on his pro--perty.—After the evidenoehad been taken at some length, the B.M. fined each lftj, bat tbe costs wete much the! heavier in the case ot Moriarty against Casey, Moriarty having, summoned "plenty of witnesses, for whom Casey bad to pay. Nga Eaupowaki v. Poki. — Claim for £i 6s 3d;— Mr. Caplen fot plaintiff, »ndf Vr. Hutchison for defendant. — This was Jan action to recover expenses incurred in the release of cattle unlawfully impounded by defendant. — The case was adjourned till next court day.— The plaintiff claims to be a tenant in common of land off which the defendants, joint tenants in common thereof, drove the stock ; . and therefore urged that defendants had illegally impounded.—The Magistrate 6aid If that were so they were undoubtedly wrong. , Williams v. McCutchan.— The Court delivered judgment in this case, heard last court day. The Magistrate said the point on which the case turned was the right to distrain ; and he had come to the conclusion that tbe distress was illegal, inasmuch as there was no actual demise from Mr. McCutchan to the plaintiff, and no fixed rent ascertained and agreed upon betw< en the parties. He ordered return of tbe, goods, with damages £8 16a. — Mr. Hutchison for plaintiff; Mr. Caplenr tor defendant. ' Trustees in Day's Estate v. Duncan. — This was an interpleader. Defendant as execution creditor of Days, seised and sold buggy and other property to satisfy a judgment, but it was alleged by the trustees, that before the money was paid over to Duncan he had notice of Bay's bankruptcy, and the trustees claim that the money is due and payable to the estate, and not to Duncan. Mr. Hutchison for tbe trustee, Mr. Oaplen for Duncan. The R.M. reserved judgment. Tbe claim is for £33. ■ , .