RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 3276, 27 March 1885, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TIMARU, Thubbdat, March 26th. (Before Captain B. Woollcon.be, R.N., H. H. Hennah and H. J. LeCren, Esqs., J.P. s.) civil case. Thyno v. McDonald— Claim, £10, for rent. After going through the amended accounts, the Court gave judgment for plaintiff for 14s, without costs. (Before J. S. Beswick, Esq., R.M., T. W. Hall and E. G. Sterieker, Esqs., J.P.'s.) drunkenness. Two first offenders were fined 5s each. child desertion. Mary Mcintosh, who was charged on remand with child desertion, denied the charge. Inspector Broham called Mrs Griffiths, who stated that the chQd had been loft with her for some time. As no payment was made on its behalf she wrote to the accused and received no reply. Finally she had to take steps against her. His Worship was afraid it was not a case of desertion but merely one of debt. Accused was discharged conditionally on her paying tho amount that afternoon. SLY GROG-BELLING. V Hugh Brotsahan was charged with selling

Mm&smsßtmmammmmMtssßtmmmma^^mmmmmtmtmms a quantity of beer on Sunday the Bth instant, without a license. Mr Hamersley appeared for the accused, who pleade I not guilty. Martha Stock deposed that she was at Brosnahan's m Kerrytown on the Bth. On her asking him if he had any beer m the houee he replied he had, and gave her somo m a 2-gallon jar, but she did not know how much he put m it. Accused changed a pound for her, but there was nothing said about the price of the beer, and there was nothing paid for it. Inspector Broham asked witness several questions, but Mr Hameralev objected to them. • J His Worship then asked witness several questions, which she answered promptiv John Stock, husband of the lost witness, said she had brought home the beer • it was for himself and the men. He did not send her for it, and did not know she had cone for it. Constable Stanley said he searched the premises of accused, and found a full eighteen gallon cask of beer, an empty one, a jar of whiskey, and some bottles and glasses. Inspector Broham asked witness if he remembered accused being convicted about a year ay,o for sly grog-selling, when Mr Haniersley objected to the question, His Worship upholding the objection. To Mr Hamersley : I had a search warrant and told the wife of accused that I had come to search the premises. His Worship said thero was not sufficient evidence to convict, and he would thereforo discharge the accused, but he had better bo careful m future. civil case. Woollcombe and Clulee (as agents for Mrs Cook) v. J. Parsons— Claim, £32 lis 6d. Mr White for plaintiffs. Judgment for plaintiffs by default. (Before J. S. Beswick, Esq., R.M.) police cases. Allen, for lighting a fire m the Borough, was fined 5s and costs 7s ; J. Mackinnon, for leaving his vehicle unattended, 10s and 7s costs ; C. H. Hooper, for the same offence, ls, and cosls lis; T. Fraser, for having cowb at large, two charges, 5s and costs 7s m each instance. civil cases. Nelson, Moate and Co. v. Gaze — Claim £24 13s 9d, judgment summons. Adjourned to May 12th. Emil Hall v. JN. Murphy— Claim £33 16s, judgment summons. Adjourned to 31st inst.A. Ormsby v. T. B. Jones -Claim £22 9s. Judgment for plaintiff for amouat. E. Acton v. Stevens— Claim £39, judgment summons. Mr Perry for plaintiff ; Mr Forster for defendant. Mr Perry questioned Mr A. White (defendant's employer), and cross-examined the defendant, who is a master mariner, very closely as to his means. Mr Forster contended that, especially as there had been no distraint on defendant's goods, the circumstance that he was not a resident of the place should have been considered, and a judgment summons only issued on application being made m open Court. Mr Perry asked for a substantial order. His Worship ordered defendant to pay £10 forthwith and £8 per month, or go to gaol for one month. (Before J. S. Beswick, Esq., R.M., H. J. LeCren and T. W. Hall, Esqs., J.P.'s.) Wilkin and Co. v. Allan and Stumbles — Claim £100, amount of indemnity for debts contracted by one D. W. Richmond. Mr Tosswill for plaintiffs ; Mr C. T. H. Perry for defendants. After briefly stating his case, Mr Tosswill called Philip Metz, who said : I was clerk for Wilkin and Co. at their Timaru branch during 1882 and 1883. The guaranteo given by Allan and Stumbles was drawn up and signed by Stumbles on behalf of Allan and Stumbles mmy presence. I believe it was read over to Stumbles, but I don't remember anything being said about it. The account produced shows the amount owing by Richmond to plaintiffs up to February 1885. Richmond never objected to any items m the account. On several occasions I have looked through the ledgers with Stumbles, and he has admitted the liability of £100. I asked him for payment of the account, and he said he would see Mr Bourn about it. I made ont the invoices showing the goods delivered, but did not deliver the goods. I do nofc know why Bichmond was never pressed for payment of the goods, nor if he "was ever asked, to pay for tliem. I did not know who composed the firm of Wilkin and Co. at that time, but I have found out since. E. B. Cox, deposed : I am a member of the firm of Wilkin and Co., the plaintiffs m this action. I saw Stumbles last September about the account; I believe he met me by appointment. As he admitted he would 1 have to pay the account I asked him to give me a bill for it, bnt this he refused to do, as he said he could not meet it, and he would not give one without a guarantee that he could renew it. I took a rough memorandum of what occurred at the time. The deed of partnership (produced) was signed m January, 1883, but the partnership itself started from the. July previous. The partnership originally was for two years, but it was agreed among the partners to extend it for another six months. There was no deed of dissolution drawn up. This caso was adjourned by tho Court till Monday at 11 a.m. The Court then adjourned.