R.M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Independent, Volume I, Issue 59, 8 October 1885, Page 3

R.M. COURT, GISBORNE.

(Before Jas. Booth, Esq., R.M.) TUESDAY. Humphries v. McDeavitt. As there was no appearance of either the summons was enlarged for one E. K. Brown v. DeVerney. Claim £2 9s 6d on a judgment summons. The defendant stated that he had been unable to work much during the winter on account of rheumatics, and he had not earned more than 10s per week. Very few men tn Poverty Bay got their wages every week. Ordered to pay Li per month. f Adair v. Francis Bros. In this case Mr Kenny said he appeared for the defendants, and since he had been in Court he had received notice that the case had been withdrawn, but as they had been brought into Court, and there had been two previous adjournments, he must ask for costs. The Court said it had been previously made a standing rule that, where a case was withdrawn tn the same manner as the present one, the defendant was to be treated as a witness and bis costs, as such, allowed him. Mr Kenny wished to point out that the present case was somewhat exceptional, inasmuch as the defendant had left a situation and was w-aiting to get away from the Bay but had been detained by this action. Mr Brassey did not know the meaning of such a ‘‘cock and bull story.'' Last time it had been stated that the defendant had been discharged from his situation. He would pay the costs if Mr Kenny would step into his office. Brassey v. Gough.

Claim £3 9s 8d for professional services. There being no appearance of the defendant judgment went by default. Currie v. Hepburn.

In giving judgment in the above case His Worship said he had carefully considered the evidence and could only come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to a judgment in his favor, as there was an implied warranty when the horse was sold. Therefore he must find for the plaintiff for the amount claimed (£10) and the costs in the case of Croft v. Currie (£7 13s). and the present case Mr H. J. Finn, who appeared for the defendant, said the warranty was admit* ; but the defendant certainly had a bright to sell under the Bill of Sale. He would give notice of appeal, in order to carry the matter to a higher Conrt.