RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 3682, 21 July 1886, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TIMABU — Tuesday, July 20th. (Before J. S. Beswick, Esq., R.M., and T. W, Hall and H. J. LeCren, Esqs., J.P.'s.) OBBOHNE LtNOCAGE. Matilda Ann Tegg was charged with having on Monday morning used obscene language m Rose Btreet. Evidence having been given foi the prosecution the prisoner made a rambling statement, which the Bench listened tc Satiently for some time, and then sentenced er to two months' imprisonment with hard labour. CITIL CABES. Lough v. Bowden— Claim £14 lis Bd, foi ratet. Mr Perry appeared for plaintiff. Judgment was given by default. Amos v. Jones— Claim £2 6s lid, for goods sold. The defendant pleaded the statute oi limitations, and informed tho Bench that the goods m question had been purchased on behalf of a Good Templar Lodge over six years ago, aud after consulting with some persons who had been members of that lodge, and still resided m Timaru, they all concurred that tbe account had been paid to plaintiffs bite wife. No account had been received from plaintiff, until about four years afterwards, and tbe lodge was not then m existence. The lodge before it finally closed liquidated all claims m full. The plaintiff was therefore nonsuited. Howene v. White— Claim £1 18s 4d for meat supplied. Mr Perry appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Lynoh for the defendant. The evidence for the plaintiff was to the effect that corned beef to tho above amount had been supplied to tho Annie Bow, while for tbe defence a receipt was put m for the settlement of tho claim, defendant objecting to pay for the meat as it was rotten and unfit for food. ■ Judgment was given for the amount claimed and coßts. Kgan v. Stevenson— Claim £19 15s, on a judgment summons. Judgment having only beon obtained bj the plaintiff m this caso on the 6th instant, and there being nothing to show that defendant bad been able to liquidate his debt, the case was dismissed. Welsh v. Nolan— Claim £9 14s; judgment summons. As the plaintiff had not tendered the defendant his expenses for attending the court, the case was dismissed. The court then rose.