R.M. Court.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 366, 19 October 1889, Page 2

R.M. Court.

The following oases wen beard on Thursday morning lagt :—T. W. Peddle vJ, Halloa, claim £1 12a 9d, for goods supplied | Mr DsLautour for plaintiff ; judgment byeonssut, coats 16*. E. 8. Goldsmith vW, Ebeling, claim £2 13s Id, for goods supplied, judgment for amount, costs fie. W. Priestly vW. Edwards, claim £5 8s for wages, judgmant foe £3 Ils, costs 10s. Georgs How Chow v W. Williams, claim £2 10s Id, for goads sup. plied, judgment by default, costs 6s. Judgment Summonses : 8. DeCosta v O. .. Goldsmith, olaim £6 0», the defendant wag ordered to pay the amount forthwith, or in default seven dtys’ itnpriaanmsui. Teat and Friar vE. Morrow, claim £8 Ila fid. Au order waa made for the amount to bs paid by weekly instalments of 2s 6d. In tbe ossa of Devery v Bruce, olaim £B,. damage for a dog worrying and killing plaintiff’s sheep, Mr Robinson for plaintiff, judgment wss given for £2, costs £2 lie 64. Tbe csss of Buries v, Douglas and Maroar, olaim £2O 16s Odjfor wages and boras hIM; was heard j Mr Watson for plaintiff and Mr Kenny for defendant. Ths plaintiff was am* ployed at the Tiniroto flax mill at tbe rate of £1 5s per week, by Douglas. Mercer stated tbat the defendant was not an experienosd flax dresser, and bad destroyed about two ton of flax, and that tbe wages claimed were |fi excess of tbat paid any of the other hands, who were only raoelvlng from 10s to £1 pet week, He did not give tbe plaintiff notlM although he was destroying the flex, but kept him at the work. Tbe evidence waa of a very contradictory nature, and judgment wqc entered up for the plaintiff for tbs amoMI claimed and Costs.