RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. FOXTON.

Manawatu Herald, Volume III, Issue 81, 10 June 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. FOXTON.

■ ♦ Wednesday, June 8, 1881. (Before Mr R. Ward, R.M., and Mr J. T. Stewart, J.P.) BREACH OF THE PUBLIC! WORKS ACT, 1876. Edwin Cole was charged by Constable M'Anulty with committing a breach of the Pnblie Works Act in giving a false waybill as to the nature of goods delivered by him at the Foxton Railway Station, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided. The defendant said if putting a few quinces instead of bottles in a case was wrong, he was guilty. It was an open case, and anyone could see it. The freight was about the same. The way-bill was put in as evidence, and the defendant admitted to having signed it. The Bench said that under the 154 th clause of the Public Works Act defendant was liable to a fine of £50. But, as it was a first offence, they would fine the defendant in the mitigated penalty of 10s and costs, 7s. The Bench further remarked that they would inflict a heavy penalty if auy similar cases were brought before them. BREACH OF RAILWAY BYELAWS. The same defendant was then charged with using; abusive and indecent language to Edward Malcolm, at the railway station, Foxton, on 14th May last, whilst the saM E lward Malcolm was in the execution of his duty, in the following words : — •' Ydu h , come round the corner, and I will knock your b eyes out !" Edward Malcolm, one of the railway guards, said that on the 14th May last Oele was swearing on the platform. He told him if he wanted to swear he must go elsewhere, when defendant put himself into a fighting attitude, and made use of the language complained of. Defendant denied having used the language. Thos. Unsworth deposed thatjon the day in question he heard the defendant make use of the words contained in the information. By defendant— l heard Malcolm tell you to use better language or else go off the platform. James Fletcher corroborated the previous witness' evidence. Benjamin Dawson, deposed that on the day in question he heard Cole tell Malcolm to go to h 1, but he was not present when the language complained of was used Defendant said he went up in the train that morning, and Malcolm asked for one of two bundles of flounders he was carrying. He refused, and put them on the brake van — and Malcolm said — " you b I will make you pay for those fish." He afterwards told Malcolm he was a mean skunk, and made some other remarks he did not recollect. If Malcolm had not commenced swearing at him, he thought he would not have said anything to him. The Bench held the case proved, and fined the defendant 103 and co3ts, 15s. CHIMNEY OX FIRE. Alex. Barber was charged with allowing his chimney to take fire on the 25th May. Mr Hankins appeared for the defendant, and stated that as defendant was leaving f.he house he was burning rubbish, and asked that a nominal penalty be inflicted. The Benoh inflicted a fine of 53 and costs, 7s. CIVIL CASES. T. P. Williams v. Henry Probat— Claim £10 Is Id, for goods sold and delivered and interest. Defendant said be would pay the amount as soon as he could. He was already paying 303 per month on a previous order, and could not offer anything now. Judgment by consent for amount and costs. John Hurley v. John Lynch.— Claim £12 4s. Mr Hankins appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Perkins for defendant. Mr Hawkins said that his client had overcharged the amount of £1 10 a, and he asked that the plaint might be reduced by that' amount After a very lengthy and tedious hearing of the case, judgment was given for plaintiff for A' 67s and costs. D. A. Poole v. J. O'Brien & Co.— Claim £3 9s 6d, for goods supplied, and 20s advanced to one of defendant's partners. Mr Hankins for plaintiff, Mr Perkins for defendant. The defendant admitted the claim, except the 20a borrowed. Mr Perkins asked that no costs might be allowed, aa no claim or account had ever been sent in. Judgment for £2 9s 6d, each party to pay his own costs. S»m« t. W. Muir.-CUim £9 11s 9d, ttt

goods supplied. Mr Hankins for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff for amount and costs. Same v. H. Hatrgie.— Claim £3. Mr H vnkins for plaintiff, Mr Perkins for defendant. Defendant had paid into Court the sum of 7a 6 1 and 4s costs, balince of account due. Plaintiff contended that ha had two accounts against defendant, the b vlance •' 7s 2d, for which he had not sued, be;ng balance of tha first on , Defendant claimed that the claim of £3 was settled. Judgment for plaintiff for amoun". and cos's, less 11s 2d paid into Court. Hinsea v. H >dder & M*son.— Claim £14 4a 10d, on a judgment summons. Ordered to be paid at the rate of £2 per month, the rlrat instalment to be payable at the end of one month. BrownV. Same.— Claim- £3 3?. Judgment by consent for amount and costs. The remainder of the causes were adjourned till next Court day, the Court rising at 4 p.m.