RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume VII, Issue 1173, 16 November 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

r -„.. ... "..This Day. . . (Before_M-#JSjB6i-'!E:?q'-', KM.) Morton tr, -Ti^pnbui]. — No appearauce of either party— case struck out. Parnell &:Boylan v. John Sheehnn. — Mr. Nolan for plaintiff. . Claim £95 for two promissory notes dishonored, and £5 interest. Judgment for plaintiff, costs of Court, £2 23, and professional fee, £3 3s. Trustee Webb's Estate v. G. Mayo. — . Mr. Cuff for plaintiff. Claim £1 15s. Judgment for plaintiff. Cook County Council v. Peka Kerikeri. — Mr. Warren sued on behalf of the County. Mr. W. L. Rees for defendant. [ ■. Claim for rates £9 9s in respect to 3 shares in the. Makauri Block. Defendant pleaded not indebted. He f ; had.no shares ; he was trustee for Erua Pohu's share. ; On it being ascertained that. Mr. i Hardy had previously paid rates for the s same property, His Worship gave judg- • ment for. defendant, .remnrking while he. did so, that he would write to the local bodies requesting them. to. be . more, L particular and correct in getting at the . valuation, and'that the Natives should , be informed of their valuations, so that i they might objeect at the right time I when the Assessment .Court was sitting. » Cook Council v. Arapeta Rarigiliwa. — ', Mr. Rees for defendant; Claim for rates ' The defence was that the land was ' Native land, consequently not liable to i be rated. Dismissed., j. Same v. He.nare Potae. — Claim £4 18s \ for rates on hotel, store, and house. , Dismissed on the same grounds. [-. Hardy v. Kilgour. — Mr. Nolan for [ plaintiff; Mr. Rees for defendant." i Claim £100, paused through the i negligence of tfre defendant who was 1 engaged as -^he^hflrd, and allowed the ' sheep; toj'gfefe'.'itM iu&ad state" : of . scabV; and ■ also causing the loss of a great number 1 of slieeprtixy not \ mustering them. when instructed.by the plaintiff at the time of ' the flbocL -'Edward Orbell, A. Hardy, E. V. liUttere^ were examined. The defendant Kilgour was also examined. Judgment was given for the plaintiff in the sum of £20 ; principally owing to defendant's neglect in allowing the sheep to go into Davis' paddock, which led to Hardy being fined in the sum of £50 in the R.M. Court for allowing infected sheep to stray. W. H. Tucker v. Pulleine.— Mr. Nolan for the defendant, and the owner of the property. , Mr. Rees for the plaintiff. ■. This was a case for the recovery of a .tenement now in the occupation of Mr. Pulleine. Mr. Nolan raised the point that there was" no service of summons on Mr.. F. A. Pulleine, which, after being discussed pro and co»forone hour, resulted in an adjournment to the 26th inst.