RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Inangahua Times, Volume II, Issue II, 2 July 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thubsday, July 1, 1880. (Before W. H. Revell, Esq , R.M.) WIISON V. ROXBUBG: Defendant was charged with smashing a window in plaintiff's hotel at Boatman's. The offence being admitted, defendant was fined ss, and ordered lo pay, 19-j costs of Court, 21s professional fee, witness' expenses, and to make good the damage done. Mr Ijynch for plaintiff. Pattebson v. E. Shaw. Claim for £20, on a dishonored promiss sory note, for goods supplied. No ap» pearance of defendant. Judgment for the amount claime I, with costs. SAME V. SAME. This -was a judgment summons calling upon defendant to show cause why he had failed to satisfy a judgment of the Court. Plaintiff said that three months had e'apsed since judgment was given, and he was unable to obtain payment. Defendant was Resident Magistrate at Wellington, and well able to pay the amount. The Magistrate said he could not make an order upon such general statements, particularly in face of the fact that there were already a number of unsatisfied orders out against the same defendant* Plaintiff urged that defendant was in a good position and should be able to pay. The Magistrate said it was not a question as to whether defendant should be able to pay, but it devolved upon plaintiff to show that he was in such a position. Plaintiff said he knew nothing beyond that defendant was in receipt of a good salary. Tl»3 Magistrate said that might bp, but a number of orders had already been made. Plaintiff said he would be content to take an order to rank after payment of all previous orders. The Magistrate said he could not make such an order. Plaintiff would have to show in term 3of the Act that defendant wns able to pay. Plaintiff said he could do no more in the matter, but he thought it very hard that defendant should be in a good position and he (witness) should have no redress. The Magistrate said that might be, but he had to be gui-led by the law; Plaintiff said in that case he wou'd bring the case before the Government, or the members in the House. His Worship refused to mako any order in the case. Gbaham v. Victoby Company. Claim for £28, for work and labor done in the mine. Mr Scoltock, the manager of the com« pany, admitted the debt, but asked that execution mi^ht be stayed for two months. i The company had agreed to pay its creditors 68 8d in the S, and all the creditors

with the exception of plaintiff and one or two others had consented, and it would take the company two months to dis* charge current obligations. In reply to the Bench plaintiff declined t> give any time. Judgment was accordingly given f r the amunt claimed and costs, the Bench refusing to order any stay. Finlat v. Police. A claim for £29 for goods supplied, interest and law expensrs. The defendant denied the liability. After hearing evidence at considerable length, his Worship reserved judgment. Hobsick v Victory Company. Claim for £21 3.1 4! , for work and labor done. Judgment confessed for the amount claimed and costs. HEsior v, E. Sjuw. Plaintiff applied upon an order of commitment under a judgment summons for an order chinginsj the location of the gaol to which defendant was committed, from New Plymouth to Wellington. The order was- made as asked. Mooe V; O'Neill. A claim for £1, being the value of a butcher's blork, alleged to have been supplied to order. Defendant denied the delivery. Plaintiff said that defendant engaged him to get a butcher's block, 4 feet in diameter and so'id. Worked all day, nnd upon getting tlie block to defendant's shop he refused to take it, because it was only 3ft. 3in. It was sound. By defendant : The block is 3 r fc. 3in, across the face ; there is not a big knot on it. Ido not csay it will round 3ft. 3in. Timothy O'Neill said that on the Thursday night he agreed with plaintiff to procure a block 4ft. 10:u. in diameter and 2ft. in height. The block was to be deliyered on the Saturday night, but on the Monday morning saw him rolling a log down the street, and objected^to it as not being according to agreement. There was a big knot on the block, and measure ing across the knot it mij;ht run 3 t. 3in , but the knot would have to come off, and I refused to tfike it. Cross -examined — Will not swear that it wa« Thnrsdsiy night, but believe it wasThe block was to be 4ft. in diameter, and I have since got such a one for the same money. Would not have the block you brought at any price. Case dismissed. Patterson v. Laws. Claim for £8 4s 6d for goods supplied. A plea of bankruptcy had been filed, but plaintiff said defendant's discharge had been suspended from twelve months, and he (plaintiff) had reason to believe that, the bankrupt had property. Defendant was examined by the plain* tiff, and said that he had retained furni tv c to the amount of £25 from h ; s estate, which he was entitled to. His Worship said he could not go into tlie matter. It the bankrupt had retained a larger amount of property from his estate than he was entitled to, a remedy must be sought in the District Court. Case dismissed. The Court thpn adjourned.