RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5552, 14 January 1879, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Monday, January 13. (Before T. A. Hansford, Esq., K.M.) OOMMIXTINO A BREACH OF THE PEACE, Henry Gauntlett was charged by the police with committing a breach of the peace in Manners-street on Sunday morning. From-the evidence of the police it appeared that prisoner had his coat off, and went round to the back of Mr. McDonald’s bakery, and challenged three or four persons to fight.. Prisoner was fined 205., or in default three days’ imprisonment, with hard labor, ervn, cases. Tho following judgment summonses were heardW, James v. Captain Ellis, claim £37

11s., goods delivered. Defendant was ordered to pay the amount in two instalments—half on the 27th instant and the balance a fortnight after, or in default three months’ imprisonment. —Jones v. Bardolph and Drummond, claim £3 18s. Defendant was ordered to pay the amount in three weeks, or in default to be imprisoned for three weeks.—F. Brady v. James, claim £3 19s. 3d. A similar order to the above case was made.—Gardiner and Co. v. Spiers, claim £3 os. 6d. Defendant did not appear, and judgment was given against him for the amount claimed and costs.—Sloan and Co. v, J. Wills, claim £3 45., for goods supplied and interest. Judgment was given for £2 75., the interest, 175., being disallowed.— J. and H. Barber v. W. J. Garwood, claim £8 for a dishonored cheque. Defendant did not appear, and judgment was given for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed and costs.— \V. and G. Turnbull v. Bernasconi, claim £3 125., for balance of account for goods sold and delivered. Judgment for plaintiff, and costa. Johns v. Orr, claim £S, as contributed towards forming a drain in Grant-road, Mr. Travers, jun., for plaintiff; Mr. Allan for the defe idant. His Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff, and costs. Waters and Lambert v. Garwood. —Claim for £3 on dishonored cheque. Judgment for the amount.

Kebblewhite v. Effingham.—Action to recover 17s. It seemed that defendant lived in one of plaintiff’s houses, but could not get on with his next door neighbor, who was also a tenant of plaintiff's, in consequence of disputes about a water tap. C. A. Baker, agent for plaintiff, agreed to pay half the cost of supplying a new tap, and defendant agreed to pay the other half, but when the work was done would not pay. He was now sued for the amount. His Worship did not consider the case satisfactory, and adjourned the matter so that Mr. Kebblewhite himself, a resident of Masterton, should give evidence. Squires v. Bower. —This was a case in which plaintiff, an hotelkeeper, sued defendant, a lodger, for board and lodging. A certain amount had been paid into Court, and as to the rest it was pleaded that it was met by articles of clothing lost owing to the negligence of plaintiff’s servants. The Court held plaintiff responsible for the loss. The case now came before the Court to be re-heard on application of plaintiff; but after hearing the evidence tho Resident Magistrate said he saw no reason for varying the decision previously arrived atl Roche v. Mowatt.—Plaintiff was a waiter and was engaged by defendant, proprietor of the Queen’s Hotel, as a waiter, at 30s. a week. He went on Saturday morning, and was dismissed on Monday as being incompetent. Plaintiff denied that he was incompetent, aud produced references. Mr. Atkinson, manager of the hotel, said he found plaintiff incompetent, and had engaged another man, Mr. Mowatt in his evidence mentioned that he had not authorised Atkinson to dismiss plaintiff, but that as another man had been engaged plaintiff was dismissed. The Bench gave a verdict for £3 and costs—a week’s wages and 30s. in lieu of a week’s notice.