RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1545, 26 August 1886, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka—Wednesday, August 25, 1886. [Before A. M. Clark andF. Gray, Esqa,, J.P’s.] DRUNKENNESS. John Donovan, who was charged with having been drank on the public street of Temnka on the 21st inst., pleaded guilty, and was fined sa. ■ TRESPASS. Frank Goodey was charged with haring trespassed in pursuit of game on the land of W. Ackroyd, Milford, on the gist inst. - John Vince was similarly charged, and both pleaded guilty. Mr Clark said tipy might possibly think they were doing no harm, but the Bench knew they were, and had come to the conclusion of patting a stop to it. They would be,fined lOseach and costs, or in default 24 hours’ imprisonment. civil casks. 1 W. Man. Gentleman v. W. Taggart —Claim £3. Mr Haraersley appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Aspinall for defendant. , The sum of £1 was paid into Court. W. Mcß. Gentleman stated : I lent a chaff-cutter to the defendant at £3 per week. ' To Mr Aspinall : I made the arrangement at my place. I' offered to sell the chaff-cutter for £l4. Be did not agree to take it at first, hot he afterwards said he would take it. Afterwards I wanted £l6 for il. 1 agreed to let him hav* it on hire for £8 per week. II« had the machine for a week. I d'd not offer it for £1 a week. I said he could have it for £1 per week if I had offered to sell it for £l4. To Mr Hamersley; There wag no agreement come to as regards the Sale. Taggart returned the machine. W. Taggart, the defendant : I asked what rental he wanted for the machine. He said £8 per week, and I,said it waa too much. He said be would raiher sell it, and offered it for £14.. It was then agreed that I should bare a trial of it. Be went up and we had a trial, and I offered him £l4 for ? it; but he then said he wanted £l6, and I would not give it. He then said I could have it •t £1 per week as long as I liked. Ha was not to receive 21 sack* of chaff for setting up the machine. Be bought 21 sacks, William Taylor: I remember the plaintiff coming up abont the machine. Taggart offered £l4, but plaintiff wanted £l6. Plaintiff then said Taggart con'd have, the machine for £1 per week. ■ • / ,s 5 To Mr ilamersLy ; Plaintiff "told Taggart he cm hi have the machine for £1 per'week. Jolih Tandy : I heard plaintiff say ha would let Taggart have the machine for £1 per week. I hear I nothing about chaff, but filled the chaff for him.^ Counsel on both . sides haying addressed the Court, judgment was gives for the Ll paid into Court, and :Coals, Si -gert and Panvel v. ; Wright*— Claim L 3 12s 6d. Mr TosswiMappeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hamersley for defendant. This w«s a complicated case arising out of transactions' between the plaintiffs and J. Wright, junr., son of ths defendant. The defendant pot in a set-off. It appears that the plaintiffs held a lien over a crop belonging to Wright, junr,, who 'filed, and in consequence of some legal informality not having been complied with, the lien became useless, Wright, junr., employed Wright, senior, to stook the crop, giving him to understand that the plaintiffs would pay him. Subsequently the crop was bought by the p'aintiffs, and the defendant claimed to be paid for ihe work helnd Hone. The account of the plaintiffs was not disputed, and Ll of the set-off was admitted to be accurate. The Court, alter a patient hearing, f held that the plaintiffs were not liable for any work done previous fo having purchased the crop from the Official Assignee, and gave judgment for L2 12s 6d and costs; The Court then adjourned.