RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 6502, 14 December 1882, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wednesday, 13th December. (Before E, H. Carew, Esq., R.M.)

Judgment was given for.the plaintiffs, with costs, in tho following cases :—6. W. Harrold v. John Carr, claim of £2 9* 6d, forgoocjs supplied ; Nathan Liebor v. John Templeton, claim £4 108, for clothes supplied; John Fargie v. Julia F. Forrester, claim £22 11s Bd, on a bill overdue ; Thomas Allan v. James Rogers, claim £3, price of a watch sold to the defendant. William Clark v, James Itushton.—Claim £5, for breach of engagement.—Mr Mouat appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Dehniston for the defendant.—Plaintiff's statement was to the effect that his wife's services as nurse had been contracted for during the confinement of defendant's wife, and that the defendant had subsequently declined to abide by the agreement.—His Worship, after hearing the evidence, decided that no contract had been established, and judgment was given for the defendant. Mary Carter v. John Neam.—Claim 13s 3d, for a cask of beer disposed of to the defendant. —Judgment was given for the amount claimed and costs.

Same v. James Wilks. — Claim £3, for damage done to wearing apparel the property of the plaintiff.—Mr Mouat appeared for the plaintiff, and said that the articles in question had been left by the plaintiff upon her verandah and were afterwards missed. .They were found at the bottom of a oulvert in the Careill road, near her house, and evidence would be given that the defendant had admitted putting them there for "a lark."—The plaintiff stated that Bhe was a widow, and. returning home late one night about a month ago, met the defendant and a woman, named Gray, who accompanied her. On, reaching home she got in througli a . window, so as not to disturb her children, and left her waterproof, containing 8s 7Jd in money, a leather bag, and her boots, on tne» verandah. The things were gono next morning, and she subsequently found them as stated. —In cross-examination thewitnesß said that a man named; Kitchener lived in hor house, but she did not pass as Mrs Kitchener. —Other evidence was' called forthe plaintiff j but it did not tend.to establish; defendant's connection with the damaged articles,: and judgment wbh given for the defendant,. . . , X, M. Meffen v. Alfred Martin.—Claim £7 19s 2d, for goods, supplied.—The sum of £2 had been paid into Court, and his Worship gave judgment for the balance, £519s 2d.