R.M.'s COURT—GISBORNE

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume II, Issue 141, 28 February 1874, Page 2

R.M.'s COURT—GISBORNE

Thursday, Febbuaby 26 , 1874. [Before W. K. Nesbitt, Esq., B.M.] SHIRLEY V. HABB. Defendant was fined Is and costs for allowing a dog in his possession to be at large without a collar ticket. BAILEY V. TUBNBULL. Mr. Wilson appeared for plaintiff. Mr. Cuff for defendant. This case arose chiefly from the free expression by some of the parties concerned, of their opinion as to the moral character of the others. It seemed to be purely a domestic squabble, in a private house, and quite uninteresting to outsiders. The Magistrate thought, both parties were to blame and dismissed the case. ■WBIGHTSON V. CAULTON. Claim 19s. This was a dispute as to certain change for a £1 note alleged to having been given by the plaintiff to defendant in payment for refreshment at the Masonic Hotel. The plaintiff, sworn, states : That he tendered a £1 note at the bar window of the Masonic Hotel to Mr. Caulton, and on enquiring for the change it was denied that he had given the money stated. W. B. Smith corroborated the plaintiff’s statement, and the Bench gave judgement for amount claimed and costs. IHAKA NGARANGIONE V. TAMIHANA TARUKK. Claim £lOO for a Maori dress illegally detained by defendants. Adjourned to Thursday next. GILMORE V. MCDONALD. Mr. Wilson applied for a rehearing in this case. No objection having been made, the application was granted. CAMERON V. GREENE. Mr. Cuff applied for a rehearing herein. Mr. Wilson objected. Mr. Cuff had shown no valid grounds for a rehearing. He had offered his friend a nonsuit on the original bearing, but as it was objected 10, why did he wish to multiply litigation by working up other cases ? He, Mr. Wilson, cared nothing for the interests of the sheepfarmers which his friend seemed so anxious about. He hud obtained a verdict in favor of his client, and if Greene has sworn false evidence let him be indicted for perjury, Mr. Cuff only wanted to introduce something foreign. The Bench would take time to consider the application. READ V. DICK. Mr. Wilson applied for a rehearing also in this case, on the grounds of insufficient evidence and excessive damages. Mr. Cuff objected. The Court should be chary in granting these rehearings. He submitted that Mr. Wilson had not shown good reasons for a rehearing. The application was granted. Friday, February 27. CAMERON V. GREENE. Application for a rehearing. The Resident Magistrate delivered the following judgment. •’ I have carefully considered the grounds upon which the above application is based, and the arguments of counsel on both sides, and have come to the conclusion that the various reasons brought forward by plaintiff’s counsel for re-opening the case are not such as justify me in granting a rehearing in opposition to the wishes of the defendant. (Signed) W. K. Nesbitt, R.M.