RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, PAPAKURA.

New Zealand Herald, Volume VII, Issue 1899, 16 February 1870, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, PAPAKURA.

(Before Charles Melaopp, Esq., R.M.) February 14. CIVIL OASES. Wilson v. Stofres.—This was a claim for damage done to plaintiff's crop of grass seed by defendant's cows. Both parties live at the Wairoa, and it appeared from the evidence that defendant, who possesses several cows, but has no grass paddocks, allows them to run on the public road, from whence tlioy break into any piece of grass where they can obtain entrance. The case was fully proved. Judgment for plaintiff, £2 and costs 395, witnesses' expense?, 10s. Wilson v. Sliaw.—A claim for £15, for overdue promissory note, and 2s 6d interest. Judgment for plaintiff for full amount and costs, 275. Lindsay v. Boyle.—Claim for £5 5s 2d, for foods sold and delivered in February and larch, 1868. In this case the Court found some difficulty in coming to a correct decision, owing to the very inefficient manner in which Mie plaintiff keeps his booke. Judgment for plaintiff for full amount and 13s costs. Lindsay v. Stevens.—Claim for £1 0s 2d, for goods sold and delivered ond cash loitfc.", Defendant paid 17s lOd into Court sod disputed the remainder. Plaintiff stated he lent him 7s fid on 17th January, 1868, but defendant alleged that the sum was only 6s. Judgment for plaintiff for full amount and costs 9s. Armstrong v. De Carteret.—Claim for £10 IT S 6d, balance due for wages. It appeared from the ovidence, that defendant engaged the plaintiff to cut up a kauri tree into boards and scartling, engaging to supply him with rations for himself and mate, while the work was in progress, and to pay the balance of ■ wages when half the work was deemed complated. Owing to an accident which the mate of plaintiff received about the beginning of the 1 present month, the work was stopped for a time, no doubt to defendant's loss ond • inconvenience ; lie considered that therefore he had a right to refuse payment for the balance of wages. However, ho could not convince the Magistrate that his was the correct viow, and the result was a judgment for plaintiff for £10 17s Gd aud costs £1 Is.