R.M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Independent, Volume I, Issue 39, 22 August 1885, Page 2

R.M. COURT, GISBORNE.

(Before Jas. Booth, Esq., R.M.) T II L'RSD A V. J. Doherty, alms Bishop, was brought up charged with being illegally on enclosed premises. There was a secoijd charge of having assaulted Mr Murchie while the latter was trying to apprehend the prisoner. It appeared from the evidence that Mrs Murchie informed her husband on his arrival home that a strange man was out in the back premises, whereupon Mr Murchie went out and attempted to

arrest the intruder, who assaulted him and then escaped. The police, to whom the prisoner is well known, succeeded in arresting him shortly afterwards. His Worship sentenced the prisoner to one month's imprisonment for being F on enclosed premises, and lined him /"to or two months for the assault, remarking that it should be well known that under the new Police Offences Act every citizen was empowered to arrest an offender, and was also entitled to the same protection from the law as a policeman. FRIDA Y. Croft v. Smith. This was a judgment summons. Mr Brassey appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Turton for defendant, Mr Turton produced certain deeds of mortgage and bill of sale, showing the disposal of the defendant’s property. Mr Brassey argued that the defendant had, after receiving the summons on August 22, made over his property in order to avoid payment of the debt. Mr Turton argued that unless the Court was satisfied, that the defendant had means, no order could be made. Brassey characterised the whole as a gross attempt at fraud. Tucker deposed that he had '-Teased the land and built the house. After a large amount of rent had become due he demanded the security given. He held the bill of sale for the value of the house and rent due. All dealings w’ere between himself and Mrs Smith. Had never received more than for rent. The furniture had been * removed with his consent. Mr Brassey said that Captain Tucker's evidence had tended to show that the bill of sale was only a means whereby to defraud the claimant out of his money. The property had been proved to be worth far more than that covered by the bill of sale. Mr Turton submitted that no order could be made, as the defendant had no visible means of paying. The Court having agreed with Mr Turton, decided not to make any order. Morgan v. Haig. Claim £<)i 19s BJ. Mr Watson for the plaintiff and Mr Brassey for the defence. J. R. Morgan deposed to the existence of a contract, and had seen the wood taken. J. T. Morgan had signed the contract, and there had been Z6IS odd of timber delivered. The present amount was outside of the contract. His Worship nonsuited the plaintiff on the grbunds of the case being outside the jurisdiction of the Court. Chrisp axd Muir v. Thompson. Claim £2 6s. Mr Turton appeared for the defendant and pleaded never indebted. The defence set up was that Messrs Chrisp and Muir were not entitled to sue, as they were not the proprietors at the time the debt was incurred. Adjourned until Tuesday next. Keefer v. Home Ruru. -• Claim /t 17s 6d. Judgment by consent for the amount and costs 15s. Davis v. Povlgraix. Claim £6 13s jd. on a judgement summons. Mr Brassey for the complaint. Ordered to pay the amount in one month or eight days imprisonment.