CIVIL CASES

Inangahua Times, Volume VIII, Issue 1315, 26 October 1883, Page 2

CIVIL CASES

Trustees in the estate of W. J. Shaw v. Emerson — Summons withdrawn, d-..f<..'.i ' dant having loft the Colony. Mr Jones for plaintiff ! Same v. S. Osbornu — <"laim for 61 7*6 I for boots supplied. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for the amount claimed with costs. Mr Joues for plaintiff. Same v. Thomas Dalton — Claim for £ boots supplied. Judgement by default for amount and costs. Mr Jones for plaintiff. Maloney v. Teague— No appearance case struck out. Mohan v. Babbel -No appearance — Struck out. Hunt v. Fanner - This was a judgement summons issued against defendant, at Greymouth. Mr Joues, who appeared for the plaintiff, called Mr Meuteath who proved that defendant promised repeal edly o pay the debt. In reply to the Bench Mr Jones said defendant had left Reefton, and was now supposed to be at Westport. He was earning good wages as a piano tuner and repairer. Order made for the payment of the amount by instalments of £3 per month. In default of ihe payment of any instalment fourteen days' imprisonment. Elliston v "Eureka— Case adjourned till next sitting of the Court. Aiken v Stanton — Claim for £1 15s for goods supplied in 1876. His Worship said he thought the claim was barred by the Statute of Limitations. Plaintiff said£l had been paid since the sumiwms was issued, and which renewed the d^bt. .Defendant did not appear and judgment was given for the balance of 15/-, with costs. Oxley v Power— Claim for £22 Is 3d for goods supplied. Judgment • y default for the amount claimed, and costs. Martin v Divine — Claim for £16, being thirty two weeks rent of cottage on BulltT road,' at 10/- a wssk. No appearance of defendant Judgment for the amount claimed, with posts. ' Down v Cashion— ln this caso service of the summons had not been effected, and the matter was adjourned Mr i.ynch for plain titf. Cochrane v Morgan Claim for » 2 7s, for b >ard and lodging. No appearance of defendant Jugdment for the amount claimed and costs King v Nelson This was a claim for L 6, the value of a watch left in defendant's custody and subsequently stolen Mr Jones appeared for the plan tiff. The following evidence was aken : Henry King : lam a baker living in Reefton ;. on the 7th August last I was. knocking about and had a watch on me ;; defendant asked me to give him the watch and he would take care of it ; subsequently applied to him for 'he. watch and he said i' had been stolen ; value it at 6. By defendant : will swear that you asked me for the watch ; I did not "volunteer Ihe watch to you. Sergeant Neville : I know both plan bit? and defendant ; on the 10th August defendant came to me and repor ed tha iVe had lost a watch which had been entrusted to him He said King had een knocking about i he worse of drink and he had offered to take charge of the watch ; he said distinctly that he had offered to take charge of the watch ; told him that that being the case, if the watch was not recovered he (defendant) would bo responsible for it ; he said he perfectly understood that George Nelson : lam a saddler living in Keefton ; King came to me and asked me to take care of his watch as he was spreeing about and might "pop" it for drink at some of the hotels ; took the watch and had it about eight days, when plaintiff came into the shop and laid down on a bunk close to where 'he watch was hanging ; after King left missed the watch and went after him ; saw plaintiff down the street and asked him if he had taken the watch ; he said the watch wa9 all right, and not to bother about it. Witness said that was not satisfactory to him, he wanted to know definitely whether he (King) had the watch ; King would give no satisfactory answer. Met Mr Rugg shortly after, who said King told him that one of the butcher boys had taken the watch for a lark', but that it was all right, as he had got it and left it at Mr Cohen'-. King was in such a state as not to know what he did or said. Hugh Duggan : lam an hotefkeeper ; recollect having a conversation with King about the watch ; he was drunk and said he had left the wachat Mr Cohen's ; saw the watch but could no speak as to its value ; believe hat it was after the watch was missed from N elson's hat the conversation in question took place. Defendant (by the Bench) I did not ask plantiff to give the watch into my cai'e. He offered it himself, never told the Sergeant that I had offered to take care of the watch Mr Jones si:b nitted that the evidence of the plantiff and the Sergeant was sufficient to establish defendant's liability as a voluntary bailee, and defendant having volunteered to take care of the watch had rendered himself liable. Judgment for . 5, and costs. The Court 'hen adjourned.

An Irish National League demnn- 1 1 .tration was held on September 9th, in J .vhich several well-known agitators , ;ook part. Michael D'avitt said ttie 1 )bject of the League was to achieve national independence for Ireland. At i i banquet in the evening Eichard Power, M.P. for Waterford, replying to the toast of " Ireland as a nation," ( lescvil>ed England as a nation insulted by France, hated by Europe, Mid harassed and embarrassed by Ireland. Cablegrams state that the , L'-'ague has arranged the platform of its campaign for the coming autumn and winter, and tire re are consequently to . be successive demonstrations at Waterford, Mallow, Carrick-on-Shan not 1 , Cork, Eiifiis, Belfast, Mullingar, Tippe'*ary, and the other central cities. Dillon has posfcpoued his journey to the United States in order to attend the Tipperary meeting.