RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, FOXTON.

Manawatu Herald, Volume III, Issue 71, 6 May 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, FOX TON.

— : — • (Before R. Ward, E>q.. R.M.) OBSCENE LANGUAGE. W. B. Richardson, of Paiaka, was charged with using obscene and filthy language in the hearing of a number of ladies and other persona. Defendant pleaded guilty. In reply to the Bmch, Constable M'Anulty stated that the language complained of was u^ed in Mr Honore'a store on the 22ud April, and r.hat several ladies had to leave the shop owing to defendant's conduct and language. Defendant said that he had been living at Paiaka for a long time, and that when he came to Foxton he had a few glasses of liquor, uader the. influence of which he must have used the language complained of. Constable M'Anulty said that he believed defendant's usual c induct was quiet and inoffensive, but that he had been extremdy impertinent and insolent during his present stay in Foxton. His Worship said that the excuse of drinking did not palliate the offence. He was determined to put down conduct of this kind, so that females or children could go about any town in his district without fear of being insulted in this way. Fined £1 and costs, 13a. Defendant— l thank your Worship Jfor your leniency to me. CIVIL CASES. M. Holland v. John Jarvis.— Claim fl 53 2d, for oats supplied. Plaintiff conducted his own case, Mr Haukins for defendant The defence to the action was that defendant bought the oats, not for himself, but for the proprietor of the Cirnsrvon estate. The evidence of plaintiff, hia wife, and a man named Smith was taken for the plaintiff, and of defendant only on the other aide. The defendant endeavoured to show that Holland knew the oats were bought for the estate, bat that owing to personal spite he had brought the acti<m ageing' him (Jarvis). The evidence went to sho * that during the negotiations no mention was made of Mr L »rk worthy 's nams, Mr Jarvis' name only bring, referred to. After hearing the evidence His Worship declare! his opinion that th^re w.vs nothmg shown in the affair to connect Mr Jarvis' employer with the transaction, and ju ttjment was ac- | cordingly given for pliiutiff for amount an! costs. M. Dick v. T. Lee. -Claim £2. for services as nurse. Tue plaintiff claimed for ten days' services, bnt defendant said she was only engaged for four da} s. Evidence I having been heard, his Worship gave jndgI meut for £1, less 10j 6 1 acknowle Iged to have been paid. Hirvey v. Hodder & t Co.— Cltim £14. for work done. Judgment by default fur I amount and costs. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. i A. Barber v. E. Coin. — Claim £2 7s, on judgment summons. Defendant said that since the date of the judgment he had received only about 30.1. He would pay the amount if he could. In reply to his Worship, defendant R-iid he had no property. "only children !"— His Worship— And oa>i you realise anything on them ? — Witue a —No, your Worship. — Dr. Barber — I think, your Worship, I hai better make him a present of the amount tor the benefit or the children. HU Worship— Well, Mr Cole, Dr. Barber has given you this amount, 1 but it ia certainly a debt of honor, and you should pay him directly you have the means. A^-S. Easton v. T. Lee.— Claim £5 17s 2d, on judgment summons. Mr Hanking for defendant, who mide an offsr tn pay £1 pur month. Aft*r a cireful exanvnatio'i into defendant's circumstance*, his Worship made an or<W that he p*y £1 per month, in default 7 days' imprisonment in Wangxnui Gaol. J. Hansen v. Hodder & Co.— Claim £14 4* 101, on judgment summons. Summons not nerved.