R.M. COURT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1013, 31 July 1891, Page 18

R.M. COURT.

Mr Robinson, R. Vf., gave judgment yesterday week in the case of Cole and Dodsworth v. E. Crawford, which was an action brought by plaintiffs for the recovery of £SO Gs, for the erection of a circular bar at tke-Te Aro Hotel. Judgment was given for the plaintiffs for £l3 Is. Mr Jellicoe appeared for tho plaintiffs, and Mr Gray for the defendant. A somewhat extraordinary case on tho civil side Gf the Court was heard before Mr Robinson, R.M., last week. Tho plaintiff is a bricklayer’s labourer namod William Thomas, and the defendant a sheep farmer residing in Hawkes Bay, named Alexander Grant, from who the plaintiff claimed £l6. Mr Morrah appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Gray for tho defendant. The plaintiff stated that on the Gth July last he met the defendant in a hotel in Wellington where they were drinking together. The defendant, beiug short of ready money, askod the waiter to bring him a pen and ink for the purpose of writing a cheque, aud at the same time asked a friend of the plaintiff’s, one Shilling, a fish hawker, to fill it in for him. The cheque was tilled in for £IG, payable on the Bank of Austraslia at Masterton (at which place the defendant had an accouut as well a 3 at Napier). The chequo was handed to the barmaid to cash, but as she could not do so, the plaintiff alleged he paid the defendant the £l6 out of his own pocket, The cheque was ultimately paid into the bank at Masterton and returned, as the signature was not recognised as beiug that of Alexander Grant. The plaintiff then summoned Grant for the amount. The defendant in his evidence denied most positively that he had ever received any money from the plaintiff. He also swore that the signature was not his. A witness named W. J. Scott, who said he was an old bank manager and an expert at writing, stated that to the best of his belief the signature to the cheque was a forgery. His Worship said he had no hesitation in saying that the cheque was not written by Grant, and gave judgment for the defendant, with costs. The cheque was impounded in view of criminal proceedings being taken against the plaintiff. A seaman named Harry Graham, belonging to the barque West York, was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment on Friday for stealing a quantity of men’s clothing and beddiug from the Victoria Restaurant, Willis The" case against Charles Kempton, who was charged with having on or about the 20th of June la3t, stolen a deerskin rug, the property of G. W. Smart, was heard by Mr Robinson, R M., on Tuesday. The evidence not being satisfactory, His Worship dis missed the case. Mr Coates defended the aC Aman named Henry Neil was summoned before the Resident Magistrate on Tuesday, for negleoting to comply with an order to support his wife and six children, the arrears being £l2. The case was brought at the instance of Mr A. Johnson, secretary of the Benevolent Society. Mr Toomath, an officer of the Salvation Army, stated that the Army had placed the defendant in a barber’s shop, which he carried on well for a few months, when he gave way to drink, and pawned his tools of trade. His Worship sentenced the man to a month’s imprisonment. Thomas Hill, who was arrested by Detective Campbell ou Friday on a charge of stealing a number of linen bags and some paper from Messrs Lyon and Blair’s premises, Lambton quay, was brought befoie Mr Robinson R.M., on Tuesday, and committed to take’his trial at the next sittings of the Supreme Court. . A married man namod James Maokie was charged at the Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday with failing to comply with an order of the Court to provide means for the support of his family. It was stated in evidence that the defendant was £3B in arrear. In extenuation of his plea of inability at present to find the money the defendant said lie had been in gaol, and since his release had paid 35s into Court. His Worship gave him a month to reduce the amount, in which case he would be Granted further time to pay off the debt. At the Magistrate’s Court, Lower Hutt, on Wednesday, before Messrs H,

Jackson and J. Cudby, justices, Timothy Horau, an old offender, was sentenced to three mouths’ bard labour for vagrancy. George Wright, on a charge of assaulting Robert Peckin, was sentenced to seven days’ hard labour. Mr Bunny appeared for Peckin, Mr Wilford for Wright. A number of unregistered dog cases were heard, and defendants were fined as follow : —Matene Tauwhare, £1 and 7s costs ; A. Te Puni, £1 11s Gd and 7s costs ; James Marks, £1 11s 6d and 7s costs ; A. Short, la and costs £1 8s 6d ; Mrs Crofts, Is and costs £1 8s Gd. Mr Bunny, the Borough solicitor, appeared in all the above case 3.

In the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Monday Mr Robinson, R. M., gave judgment for plaintiffs in the following cases :—George Meo v. L. E. Prichard, claim £9 lls Gd, cost 3 11s ; F. Redwood v. P. Cartnody, £2 9s Gd, costs 7s ; J. Myers and Co. v. H. G. Hankin,£l3 Is 2d, costs 21s ; J. Kuight v. D. Knight, £55 0s 4d, costs £2 Is ; J. Nathan and Co. v. Thomas Powick, £l2, costs 21s ; Stewart and Co. v. John Read, £ll 8i 9J, costs 2ls ; Frederick Churchill v. William Morris, £3 Ss, oosts 7s. Iu the case of E. J. Chatwin v. Charles Moore, a judgment summons for £23 10s Gd, defendant was ordered to pay £1 on the 10th of August, and £1 per week subsequently, in default 14 days’ imprison, ment. Iu the case of Richard Carnall v. Wm. S. Pascoe, a claim of £1 2s, judgment was given for the defendant.