RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Timaru Herald, Volume XL, Issue 2918, 30 January 1884, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

TlMAKTT— Tuesday, Jan. 29. (Before E. G. Steriokor, Esq., J.P., and Hi Worship tha Mayor.) CHILD DBEEBTION. Amelia dark, on remand, .was charged on the information of D. Stibiston, Immigratior !o<p6t Master, with deserting her illegitimate mule child at tbe Dep6t, on tbe 3rd inßtant ; leafing it without aduquate means of support. Inspector Broham applied for a second remand. Ho regretted to have to do this, but tho case was one that could only be beard by tho Resident Magistrate, and Mr Besurick, he wsb informed, would not be back till next w«ek. The girl had been m gaol finoe the last remand, and she might be admitted to bnil for the next week. The Benoh remanded the prisoner till next Tuesday, with tbe understanding that »he may be admitted to b.iil m the sum of £&. VACCINATION. Inspector Broham, at the request of Mr Cooper, tho Registrar, withdrew the informations Bgainßt Jne. Mann and J. W. Jones, of neglectiug to have thoir children vaccinated, proper certificates having been produced. DKUNKIStffIESH. M. McQrath was fined 10s, or 48 hours' imprisonment, for being drunk m the streets. OIVTZi OASB3. Judgment for plaintiffs by default waß given m the following ciees :— A. Ormsby v.' H. Bodley, olaim £15, costs £2 18s ; Titnaru Herald Company v. Q. R. Freeman, claim £5 10s 6d, ooets lls : A. St. Q-. Hame»ley v. M. Collins, claim £5, coots 16s. The following casos were adjourned for euven days: — A. St. &. Hamersley v. C. Massey, cluim €2 17 2d ; H. Nicholls v. F, Foff, claim £11 6a 6d, defendant put m a B9t-off of £8 18s ; J. Bell v. T. T. Brownell, claim £20. Levels Boad Board v. D. MoGrath— Claim lie, rates. Defendant objeotod etroDgly to being called upon to pay tlcjae rates. He had token the house rated four years ago from Mr Tate, i-ate-free, and he wanted to kuow why tba bargain could not be stuck to. Mr C. Wright, rato collector to the Board, nhowed that tho property was now oßtered on the rate roll m defendant's nama ; witness did not know tbe owner. The Bench gave judgment for the amount claimed, and costs 7k, and advised defendant to stop it out of the rent. Nine other' oases m which the Levels Boad Board were pl»intifEo, for rates, were settled but of Court. Anu Noble v. E. MoNally —Claim, £11 4e sd. Mr White for plaintiff, Mr Hamersloy for defendant. The defendant fn this caae is an hotflkeeper at Makikitri, and the plaintiff was engaged m Dunodin as cook and laundress for the hotel at the rats of £52 a year. It was part of the agreement that defendant should pay plaintiff's railway fare from Dunedin if BUe stayed three montha. After the had been m tbe situation tim wooks defendant dismissed hor summarily. Plaintiff claimed payment for three months and the railway faro | defendant paid into Court £3 4) 6d, being £1 . per week and the railway fare, lues £2 10s paid on account. Tbe point to whioh the evidenoo was , chiefly directed was whether defendant had sufficient reason for summarily dismissing the plaintiff. The former entered into details showing that plaintiff had frequently disregarded his orders and neglected her duties j the lattor stated that to fir as she knew, she was diemissed simply booauao she did nob clean some tripe, which was not a oook's work, 81 ill less a laundress. The Benoh held that plaintiff liad made out tho better case, itnd nave judgment for the amount olaimed, with oosti £1 15s, and solicitor's fee £1 Is. : The Court then ndjournod.