RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1550, 31 August 1886, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Geraldine—Monday, Aug. 30, 1886. | [Before H. C. S, Biddeley, Esq., R.M., and Rev. G. Barclay, and Dr Fish, and H. W, Moore, Ksq., J.P.’s. DANCING IN A PUBLIC-HOUSE, R. Taylor was charged with allowing dancing in his licensed house. This case had been adjourned from last Court day, as the Magistrate had stated that the case should bo dealt witjt by the Licensing Committee. Mr Biddeley said that he was rtiH of opinion that it ought to be brought before the Licensing Committee, He would therefore dismiss the case. If the police thought fit they could bring it before the Licensing Committee, omp OASES. White and Co, v. Meredith-r-Claim £BO. Mr Raymond, one of the plaintiffs, asked th&l the case might he adjourned for 14 days, which was done. J. Gaby v. M. Harris—Claim £3O. Mr Raymond, for plaintiff, asked that the case might be adjourned for 14 daya, which was done. W. Lawson v. E. Lorgelly-—Claim £4 13s Bd. Mr Raymond appeared for defendant. Plaintiff, sworn, stated that most of the goods mentioned in the account had been delivered by hie mao. The account had not been disputed till after the man had left. He delivered some of the goods himself. The accounts had been regularly rendered and never disputed till after January. Plaintiff pointed out the items he had delivered himself. He stated that defendant had asked him to leave the joints at a neighbor’s house as it was not handy to get to defendant’s house, The goods had been delivered at the house as ordered. Plaintiff had rendered the account every month but there had been no dispute about the account till after the man had left. To Mr Raymond: This qian of mine provpd dishqneot to me by not paying over accounts he had received. I did tell Mrs Lorgelly I would put the police on his track but did not do so as the accounts were too small to pay for it. I always deliver the accounts through the mao as stated. The man left on the 22nd January. To His Worship : I did not tbiuk that defendant had paid the man and the man proved jdishonest. Plaintiff did not dispute the whole of the account, but said he had paid for some of jhe items. He had always been a good pay but denied several items in this account. 1 have discovered two small defalcations that my man made at Peel Forest, Defendant, sworn, said his place was about 14 miles from Lawson’s shop. He did not believe that Lgwson ever delivered any of the nxeat. He had left tqoney with his wife for her to pay cash at the cait for the meat. Ho had never received any account from Mr Lawson before till this one. He always paid for the things as he got them. To Plaintiff : J. remember meeting you at Mr Button thouse, and ordering-a piece

of m cit beef. But I did you a *ma!l account, Lawson ” Mis Lorgelly, sworn, said : I am the wife of defendant. I know plaintiff and bin man. I always paid for my meat an I got if. My baker the same. I do not remember Mr Lawson leaving any meat at a neighbor’s house. I remember Mr Lawson coming up, and she had a piece of meat. Mr Lawson commenced talking about the dishonesty of bis man, and he banded me a bill which I had told him at the time 1 did not owe. lam quits positive I owed nothing. _ I always met the man at the neighbor’s house aud got the meat myself. Mr Raymond pointed out that there was not Ihe slightest evidence of the delivery of the meat. The plaintiff’s case failed by its own weakness. There were tw* distinct statements, one that the meat had been delivered at the neighbor’s house, and the other denying it. The onus of proof, he stated, rested with the plaintiff, and he bad entirely failed to prove that the meat had been delivered. His Worship stated that there was not sufficient evidence to saddle the defendant with the greater part of the bill. Upon the whole, however, the Bench decidedly preferred the evidence of the plaintiff to defendant. Plaintiff here asked for a nonsuit, which was accordingly given. J. Kalaugher v. E. Fox—Claim £lO 16s. Judgment summons. This was a judgment summons for £lO 16s, of which £2 10s had been paid by defendant, leaving a balance of £8 6s. Plaintiff stated that defendant had been working for about nine months at Peel Forest since he had obtained judgment against him. Ho had been receiv< ing £1 per week and found. He also put in two letters in which defendant had offered to pay by instalments, which he had never done. After hearing the plaintiff’s evidence, the Court made an order that the amount be paid within a week; failing payment, the defendant to be imprisoned for six weeks. This being all the business, the Court adjourned till September 13th.