Magistrate’s Court.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume XIX, Issue 1791, 5 February 1886, Page 2

Magistrate’s Court.

GREYTOWN—WEDNESDAY. (Before U. A. Stratford, 8.U.) J. Lewie ?. W, J. Gamblin. Mr Saodilande (or the prosecution and Mr Gray (or the defence. It appeared that on the 15th of last month Lewie and Gamblin came to high words in the Main Street of Grey town near the Town Hall, It arose out of a transaction concerning the patting down of a pomp, Gamblin giving Lewis “ a bit of his mind ” and saying he had been “ had ’ over tba affair. It was alleged by Lewis and two witnesses, W. Blanche aud Albert Gardener, that Gamblin swore at Lewis and told the fire brigade to run the engine over him as he would be no loss. The charge of using bad language was denied by the defendent, although he owned to calling him a " cur ” and a few other such like expressions, and this was corroborated by F, Jorgensen and J. Boydhouse. Constable Eccletou stated that be saw a knot of persons together, but heard no bad language. The Bench decided the case by fining the defendant 10s and costs. Hatton v. Haxten. Mr Gray for defendant Maria Haxton, and Mr Menteath for the husband Andrew Maxton. It will be remembered that Hsxtoa was sent to gaol some weeks ago (or failing to contribute £3 per month towards the support of his wife, the pair having separated from each other. Uaxtou now applied to have the case re-opened, stating by affidavit that he had evidence to prove that he gave instructions to Mr Maxton, baker, Mr Kempton, batcher, and Mr Kemp* ton, storekeeper, to snpply his wife with all that she required, and that when the case came before the court it was given against him because his solicitor depended solely upon a written agreement between him and hia wife which was produced in court, but which wan thrown out because it was not stamped. Depmding upon the said agreement the other evidence was not forthcoming and he was taken by surprise. On the ground of “ surpriie ” also be asked through hia solicitor for a re-bearing. Mr Gray opposed the application, upon the ground that His Worship bad no power to reopen the case, and argued that “ surprise ” could not be pleaded. Both learned gentlemen bad a long argument upon the legal aspect of the question. The R.M. decided to take the affidavits put in and give the matter careful consideration. He considered that Haxton had misled hie connscl, though perhaps not wilfully. He (the K M.) had a very gieen memory as to this case and the conduct of Haxton towards his wife. The man had really driven his wile from home from fear. Judgment was reserved.

Wm Mitchell y. Henry Kempton, Mr Gray for plaintiff, Mr Saudiiands for defendant. This was a claim for f !<; Ids r. -it of Imlclier’* shop and dwelling home ii, : irevtmvn. The ytli.ii>s itT st ;ted lion ilk- bleudant entered the |*i. iuiK ( K on 21.-1 .\,m, Ihß4 ; that lie let tin- place to ‘not ;• r week for aiy months, «u,«r Cmii mne 20s per week was to be paid I. M n Im.i paid in. to Court a; d tie- •> >1 > 'ii- ■, i," J■">. wi, - 11 1 i owing. The house wns not i> a .U-l on 1 iu, I state when ffempt n took ii < t i I n w i's only agreed that one of th ■ rooms wis K- pan-ued. No memornn !um of ngrce i.. ni wus signed between them.

The defendant said i>> l>>ok the premises on the 12ih Apiil, l.v-a piolucd a memorandum book with an ei.liv an to terms which ho twoio wan nnwle at dia time of taking the lion-a: fur lead of the i.gi.emeut being ids for lir.-t so, month- end 2o- utter that, it was arranged b-tw M ii hum-. If and Mitchell tlmtlhe lent nil -nl i he reine d to 10s lifter the six month* win up Hi admilled the claim, less, Till the dilieieiioo through reducing flic rent t > I'iu Tin- agreement was that if the bii-uies- did not pay at tliftond of the six mouths the rent should no reduced 5s per week. _riie defendant uNo put in a set off of £;i lis 7d owing t>> expenses meinred lluough the place hoing out of repair, articles bought w'ueh were not found ugo.i the premises when the business was taken, though written in the inventory, and for 12 m« k-' rent owing to lh r * house leaking, IVfeinU it htd spoten to Mitched about these things.

W. Mitchell H.iiJ bn did not iu;ree to any fi'l'Nirs being done ; tuo defend* it had never made any complaint to him, nor spoken of any leakage until lie was out ul the house. Mr 11 1 1 v spoke about .1 hioicMi window. All ibo (to o l.i were delivered whu-u the defend Bl swore he did not get, and lie had mile i<j complaint to that etleel. The IJelich restored judgment.

At the t’arteiton Court on Tuesday K. W. Wron obtained judgment for £6, wa getf, gainst Irvine Armstrong. Other ctwi wet* settled out of court.