MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 3539, 25 January 1900, Page 4

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

At tho Magistrate’s Court, Temiika, oa Tuesday, before S. A. Wray, Esq., S.M., Frederick Prattley was charged with being on licensed premises during tho currency of a prohibition order against him. He pleaded guilty. Constable Gillespie explained that accused had been found on Mr Chute’s premises on the 9th. He was pub off by Mr Chute, and served with a notice by the police to tho effect that the order forbade his going on to any part of the premises of hotels. Later on he again went on to the hotel premises, and was put off by Mr Chute. Subsequently he was arrested for drunkenness, and next day was fined. It appeared to him that accused was setting tho order at defiance, and it was no use making an order against a man if it was not obeyed. His Worship fined accused £3, with Court costs 13s, and witness’ fee ss. An assault case, in which two local ladies were tho parties, was heard. Mr Aspinall appeared for the complainant, and. Mr Parnio for defendant. Evidence was gi von in support of the charge. The Magistrate said accused would have to restrain herself from interfering with other people, and inflicted a fine of ss, with court cosst 9s, and solicitor’s fee £1 Is. OLD AGE PENSIONS. Several persons made applications for old ago pensions, and one was granted in full. It is necessary for those persons who received the pensions 12 months’ ago to apply for a renewal of the same otherwise they will lapse. The necessary form can he obtained from the Deputy-Registrar, G ei’aldine. Geraldine Tubs da v, Jan, 23, 1900.

[Before Messrs J. W. Pye and 11. W Moore, J.P.s.] CIVIL CASES.

M. Mahoney v. D. Gregan—Claim £3, for wages duo for work done on farm at Plea-* sant Valley. Plaintiff gave evidence that he was engaged by d ofendant and worked for three weeks on his farm.

Defendant called evidence to prove that Mahoney was simply waiting at his farm to start on a contract which his (defendant’s) son had trkon at Kakahu. Defendant also swore that plaintiff was not employed by him to do any work, and called evidence to that effect. Judgment was given for defendant with costs. A judgment summons case was adjourned till next Court day. The Court then rose.