Untitled

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume VI, Issue 968, 5 December 1879, Page 2

In the remote village of :N— — , m a little country church, a woman brought twins to be christened. ' What name V asked the clergyman. ' Cherubim and Seraphim,' said the woman, ' for they continually cry. 1 The San Francisco News Letter, writing the biography of a fflHowcitizen, says : — ' Mr. Jones felodeceed this morning successfully. He hymeneated three years ago, and he will be sepulchred to-morrow.' A.Randon Answer. —A little girl waa Bsk«>d by a Roman Catholic priest : ' What ia-the saopament of matrimony V 'The 'poor child,' who had. learned her lesson by rote, got a little mixed, and give the answer to another question, as follows :—' It is a state of torment into which the souls enter to prepare for another and better world. * The priest who had observed, but not experienced, pimply replied, with a sigh. ' For aught I know, you may be perfectly right,' and went on with the examination. That bed is not long enough for me,' said a very tall, gruff old Englishman, upon being ushered into his bedroom by an Irish waiter at an Americanhotel. 'Faith an' you'll find it plenty long enough, sir, when you get into it,' was the reply ; ' for then there'll be two feet more added to it.' Exit Pat, with a boot fetohing up the rear.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. 1 (Before C. Whitefoord Esq., "■ R.M. an£ Captain Gudgeon, R.M.) „; John Thompson v. Miv. and Mn& k Hoani White. Claim £34 10s. M£ Brassey for plaintiff and Mr. Robinson for defendants. Mr. Thomson deposed to making an agreement with Noko to work at 10s. a day for building a douse and other work, atovhich he was engaged fur 69 days. In croas-examinantion, plaintiff admitted that at one time Noko, through the interpreter offered, ss. a day, bur that he refused to take that amount. There was no conversation between them of £1 a week and found. He 'asked for the money when the work was finished and Noko admitted the debt, but wanted ' to pay it by and by. Mrs. Noko White deposed that there was no arrrangement nude between herself and Thompson. It was understood that she had to pay according to the work done. When she got the account she could not understand it, but promised to pay it. The Bench said that the evidence as to the agreement was very vague, and there was nothing to prove that the interpreter was an accredited agent of the defendant's. The plaintiff would be entitled to the usual rate of wages, viz., 10s. with three shillings deducted for board. Judgment for £24 3s. and costs. Graham & Co. v. Paora Parau — Claim, £20 Bs. Mr. Bromfield for plaintiff Judgment for amount claimed. E. X Brown v. Eruera Taupirau — Claim, dishonored V.S. for £35 10s. Judgment for amount claimed. Higgins v. Jackson— Judgment on confession for the full amount. A. McDonald v. R. Cooper— Claim for* the : B'ervice. of mares, wag adjourned for one month. Judgment. Parsons Trustee and Bond v. Cameron —The plaintiffs brought two actions on the same grounds for £93 8s 9d, and £78 lls 6d. respectively for rent of paddocks m Parsons' Estate. Mr. E. ff. Ward appeared for plaintiffs and Mr. W. R. Robinson for defendant. The deferred decision m this case was given to-day. His Worship commented at kngth on the evidence which he said was conflicting, the, balance however being m favor of the plaintiff's. On the merits of the case, he would have to decide against Mr. Robinson. Then he would have to decide on the two points of law raised on behalf of the:, defence ; first with reference io the jurisdiction, and second the contention that there should Have been an agreement m writing between the parties under the Statute of Frauds. As to the jurisdiction he would have to overrule the objection raised, and arrive at a similar conclusion as m the oase of Wiokham v. Lee (Queen's Bench Reports), where it was held (hat a claim for double value was a different cause of aotion from a demand for rent. He considered this case analogous m many respects to the one quoted. As t> the Statute of Frauds he held, that the defendants, having taken possession after the sale, and thereby performing the contract, took it out of the statute, and that, though there was no agreement m writing, defendant could not set up the statute. Judgment would therefore go for the plaint® for the amount claimed. Mr. Robinson gave notice of an appeal. - - ! v