LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVII, Issue 5757, 30 April 1880, Page 6

LAW AND POLICE.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.— Tbursdxy. [Before J. E. M&cdonald, Esq., "R.M..] Judgments for Piaiktiffs. — Fisher and Co. v. Jackson Keddelt : £1 ISa 4d, for goods supplied ; Mr. Thorne for plaintiff; cojts, £1 2a 61. Francis Quick v. W. Smith: Claim, £14 ; Mr. Dufaur for plaintiff; costs, £2 63. F. G._ Ewington v. Matthew H. Frost and Edward T. Brasaey: £4 16s, amount of a P. N. ; Mr. Theophilus Cooper for plaintiff; costs, £20 O3 6d. Hoare and Co. v. Patrick McVlahon : £1 18s 3d ; costs, 123. W. Stempsou v. S Paacoe: £8 103 Id ; coats, 153. Upton and Co. v. James T. Camp : £11 2i 7d, amount of a P.N. ; Mr. T. Cooper for plaintiff; cost?, £2 3s ; Hatleaatein Brothers v. Thos. Robinson : £6 14s 6d ; Mr. Thorne for plaintiff ; co3t3, £1 153. Jeramiah Mahonay v. James Dampaey: Claim, £50, cash lent: Mr. S. Heaketh for plaintiff; costs, £4 181. Auckland Timber Company v. Thomas tt. Brown : £6 5s 9d ; Mr. Hughes for the plaintiff; co3ts, £1 19s. F. B. Hughes v. Kenneth Kerr: £7 14s, amount of a cheque returnei to him marked "Referred to drawer costs, 16a.

JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. Robert Ddffv v. J. Moyla.it.—The judgment was for £3 11a 2d. Mr. Alexander appeared for the judgment creditor, and said that Moylan had paid £2 ss. He asked for an order for the balance. Ordered to pay £1 16s 2d within seven day?, or, in default, ten days' imprisonment. James E. Gilbert v. Ellen' Eliza Potter. —Mr. E. Cooper for the judgment creditor. The judgment obtained in January last was for £10 183 61. Defendant was examined as to her mean 1 ). She was ia receipt o£ money interest on certain baak shares to the amount of £17 per month, but the money coming to her was already mortgaged. She had received several instalments since the judgment was obtained. An onlecv wag made to pay the amount, with £1 costs, within seven tlaygj or in default fourteeu'daya' imprisonment? — Defended Cases.—Sou Mi v. Ah Bing. This was a claim for £9. Mr. Laishley for the plaintiff. Mr. Hesketh for the defendant. The case had been heard on the list Court day and judgment had gone for the plaintiff, and Mr. Hesketh now applied for a re-heiring, on the ground that three or four witnesses had deposed to cartain facts which were denied by the defendant j but he was unsupported. He was now in a position to prove that, at the time sworn to by the witnesses, Ah Bing was not in the room where they sworo the conversation took place. Mr. Laishley opposed the application, as Mr. Hesketh had brought no evidence on affidavit or otherwise to show that, if the case was re opened, he would be able to produce evidence which would alter the judgment of the Court; secondly, that substantial jus tic a had already been done between the parties. The new trial was granted, on condition of the debt and costs being paid into Court, and that the coats of the new trial should be guaranteed. These conditions were accepted, and the rehearing was fixed for next week.

Grito. Smith v. R. Simkik.—The claim wai for £1S 3s 6d. Mr. E. Cooper for the plaintiff, and Mr. T. Cooper for the defendant. The actio a was to recover the amount for the sustenance and expenses connected with the defendant's children, and money paid on the defendant's account. The whole of the circumstances arose in England. George Smith, the plaintiff to the action, deposed that he was a labourer- The defendant was his brother-in-law. While in Englau'l, the defendant proposed to him to take charge of his chiMren, and he would pay him when he got employment in New Zealand. He had made claims on the defendant for payment, but he had not admitted the debt to him. Cross-examined : His wife had once refused to give back the children to their mother. It was their father who asked him to take charge of the children until he sent for them. There were no terms or arrangements made, only that witness took the children to keep, and defendant was io pay him. Witness was cross-examined as to a sum of £7 17s, which had been paid to a loan society by him on behalf of the defendant after defendant left England for New Zealand. Defendant left some bedding and clothing when he came away, became he could not quit of them, not as payment for the keep of the children. A part of the claim was for £2 10s for ship's outfit for the children. Mary Smith, wife o£ the plaintiff, gave a long aocount of what led to the defendant leaving England, and how he came to Leave the children with them. They had oharge of the children ten or eleven months, and she estimated that it took 2i Gd a-week to keep them. She gave evidence as to the various items of thi claim in a very clear and consecutive manner, and was cross-examinsd, but her evidence was not at all shaken. Mr. T. Cooper said his client had gone to Sydney, and he did not propose any evidence. His Worship said, that it would require very strong evidence of the plaintiffs. They were well entitled to all they claimed. Judgement was given for the amount claimed and costs, £3 63.

Cases Adjourned. —M. Sheehan v. J. Hogan, £7 19s, adjourned for a month ; A. Gr. Grant v. S. Coombes, £10 2s lid, for a week; T. Alerrigan v. Elian Joiner, £2 16j 10J, for a fortnight; Brabazin and ITulljarnes v. S. Partridge, £6 Sj 4d, for a week; J. 13. Ellis v. C. Jones, £3 13s Gd, judgment summons, for a fortnight; W. and G. Winstone v. C. Jones, £10 16s, judgment summons, for a fortnight.

POLICE COURT.—Thursday. I Before R. C. Birstow, Esq., R.M.3 Drottkknness. — Four persons were charged with this offence, and punished in the usual way. Indecent Assault. —C. A. Martin, charged with this offence, surrendered to his bail. Mr. Tyler appeared for ths complainant, and Mr. MacCormick for the defendant. It wa3 agreed to adjourn the hearing till Monday, the 3rd of May.