RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume 27, Issue 950, 27 June 1883, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before J. Nugent Wood, Bsq, R.M.)

At the R.M. Court on Monday last, before His Worship J. N.'Wood, Esq., the following business was disposed of t— W. Johnston, Robert "Pulton, Robert Grieve, Duncan Beaton, and Mrs Hopkins, hotelkeepers, were charged, on the information of the Police, with not having hsd lights burnipg in front of thtir premises when visited by the Police. Defendant* pleaded guilty, and Were eaohV-bsing jtheir Irst offence— fined 1 itf th« nominal penalty of Is and costs (75.)

Robert M'Cutcheon, for4>eing drunk and uiing provoking language to the' Police in Boss Place on Saturday evening last, was fined 20s, or, in default, forty-eight hours' imprisonment.

Tolchtr v. Egglestone. —Mr Hunter for plaintiff. Claim, £6 8s lid, balance of amount on promissory-note. Judgment, by default, for amount and interest (£5 '8s lid), and coits (11s), professional fee (10s, 6d.)

Higgins v. Stewart. — Mr M'Coy for plain* tut ; Mr Copland for defendant. Judgment entered for plaintiff for £39 Uf Id, the amount of claim. Mr Copland asked that execution might be stayed for six months, but the matter was left to the parties to arrange. Maccarthy r. Emna.— Mr M'Coy for plaintiff ;Mr HunUr for defendant. Claim of £1 11s 6d for professional services. Mr Hunter asked that the summons be dismissed, as it .had! been- served on .the wife ?6t defendant. Mr M'Coy asked for an adjournment. Summons struck out. / . . '' -j ' Wedlabe v. White.— Mr M'Coy 1 for plaintiff. Claim of '35s for cleaning' a' watch. Defendant objected to pay on the ground thai the watch had not been keeping 'time properly since being returned. ' Judgment was given for amount and costs (7») Ah Tye v. W. Trimble.— -Mr M'Ooy for plaintiff j Mr Hunttr for defendant. Claim of £10 damages, for pulling. down and re . moving the timber of a hut. Mr Hunter, on behalf of defendant, admitted having pulled down the hut, but was prepared with evidence to show that defendant* had bought it. from a Chinaman for the timber in it, it being near to defendant's residence. Evidence' to that effect and to the fact of the hut. being uninhabitable, at the time, wassgiven. On behalf of the plaintiff/ evidence was given, through, an interpreterj s that defendant was in Kossession, having the key of the door. Mr ['Coy argued that jtieVbut ibeingron Crown lands, and the plaintiff having the 'symbol of possession — the key— he was j tho owner. — Mr Hunter argued that sufficient eyidenoe had been brought to show that the timber of the hut had been bought from* Ah Yepp.' His Worship gave judgment for £2' and .costs, I7i ; professional fee, £l Is. ' )

Cumming v. O'Rully. — Mr M'Coy for plaintiff;; Mr Finlayio'ri for defendant. Claim of £6 damages for the destruction of young pigs t for the trespass of a mare and foal } and for defendant's dogs chasing plaintiffs sheep . Mr M'Goy in opening the ease for plaintiff, said that the Value of the young pigs destroyed was more than the' whole of the sum claimed, and the trespasses were very annoying. His client had only .sued for a small sum in order that the trespasses might be stopped. Defendant's dogs had chased plaintiff's sheep away, to that they mixed with other people's and there was afterwards trouble in having to run the sheep into yards so as to separate them. Evidence was given by plaintiff and Geo. -Walsh (a ploughman to defendant) of the trespasses, and the annoyance by defendant's two dogs of plain* tiff's sow' and pigs until the latter were trampled to death ; and also of the hunting of the sheep by defendant's dogs. — George O'Eeilly, the defendant, residing at the Beaumont reserve, deposed that latterly he bad his dogs tied up night and day, and that he never knew them to worry anything ; that he had never seen plaintiff's sow nor pigs and never recdembered hearing anything about the destruction of the pigs until be received a summons. Mr Finlayson contended that as the section on whioh the trespass took place was near to a commonage and unfenced, plaintiff was not entitled to damages ; and nothing had been adduced to show that defendant's dogs were of a vicious nature, and 'in the habit of worrying sheep or anything else.— His Worship was of opinion that there w«s no doubt as to the first plaint— the trespass —for which Is damages was given ; 13. pigs were seen to be killed, and 5s a head was a fair value ; the other sum of 93 claimed as damages couldn't have, been laid at much less. Judgment for £3 15s and, 4 costs (£1 10s), solicitor's* fee, £1 Is.

Daniel Morgan v, W. M'GiUivray. — Mr M'Coy for plaintiff. This was a claim of £5 3b Id, Balance owing plaintiff for wages earned in the employ of defendant. Plaintiff had been in the employ of defendant 42 weeks and three-days-—s even weeks at £1 per week, and the remainder at 15s. Defendant put in a plea of not indebted, and produced his blocks for cheques and an entryBook of payments made to plaintiff at different times during the service. Plaintiff produced a check of entries he had made at the time of receiving the payments, and admitted them all with the exception of a j£lo cheque, nlleged by defendant to be issued on 7th September, which" plaintiff said he never received. An adjournment, in order to produce evidence of this cheque, was granted to defendant. On the Court resuming the hearing of the case, Mr Hunter, Who had been retained in the interval on behalf of defendant, called James Newton, clerk in the Colonial Bank, who produced a cheque for £10 paid to the order of Daniel Morgan. Witness cashed the cheque, but could not swear to Morgan being the party who received payment of it. Plaintiff denied all knowledgeof jthe cheque.— His Worship gave judgment., for the amount claimed, saying that he had no knowledge of how the cheque came there, and 1 it wasn't usual for people to pay £5 or £10 too much, as would have been the case if plaintiff had received the cheque; costs,, 23a. j professional ice, £1 Is.

Macoarthy v. O'Kane.— Claim of £9 9s for professional services ; Mr M'Coy for plaintiff j Mr Hunter, for defendant, asked that execucution might be stayed and the sum allowed to be paid in instalments. Judgment for amount and costs (Us) j professional fee

Hunkr v. Feat7ientone.—> Adjourned to 9th July* „- ,- .- Vt •. -,-> i v .-■ •, - ---cj Onf the] application of. Mr Gtooday,*. (for defendant), defendant's evidence for another .Court was taken in the case of Mair v. Craw- ; ford, t ' {,V- .