R. M. COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume IV, Issue 275, 17 October 1884, Page 2

R. M. COURT.

YESTERDAY.

(Before JR. Ward* Esq.* R.M.) ' DBUNKSNif BSSi Police v. Michael O'Biieu.^-Drunk- ■ enness,' fined ss, m default 24 hours' imprisonment. • ""' BREACH OP PUBLIC WOBKgjLOT. Same v. Ernest Brown ,~J&reach of Public Works Act. Driving a. vehicle across railway crossing, within £- mile of an approaching train. Defendant pleaded guilty, .hat' offered m excuse his inability to get over the Hue as he was driving a restive horse, and did what what he considered best under the circumstances m pushing over quickly. Fined 10s and cOßli 13s. LUNACY.' Ebeuezer Dixon on charge of lunacy was committed to the Asylum. "CIVIL CASES. V. Alex. Ferguson v. Po'ad & Brazier. —Claim, itl 0s 2d. Mr J. H. Hankins for plaintiff. "R. HUnnah proved the delivery of the goods. Judgment • for plain tiff'and, costs. "' G. W. Stephe'nabn -V: Thtis.' 'Foster. { '— £12 14s}' claim Tor rebt.^ Wt,3i H. ' Hankins for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff and; costs. ' ; ! • ' ! [By order of the Bench, Mr Staito, solicitor, was herd removed for repeatedly interrupting tho business of the Court. -'■.:;;;:.:: G, M. Snelson v, oEnpch Walker. ! ; r- Claim, £3 65., , Mr Fletcher 4fhnston for plaintiff. ; Judgmeai ,£or plaintiff and costs. _-._._, ; . . [I he Bench, very considei-ately her« . sent 1 foe Mr Staite, and jminted out to him the likelihood of his be ng comniitteil for contempt of Court for >hii unseemly behaviour, and r«?conim>ind« ing him to eefc anotliHr solicitor to take his cases for 1 the [day. Staite apologisjed to the . Bench for liift conduct, but preferred , to, conduct fhia legal bnsiuetw himself, and then iook . his seat,

» 4 — X; PaVtriag© v. Here, (riutire). Claim 7a, for cartage oi timber. Mr Flttcher Johnston for defendant. Judgment far plaintiff and costs. Wm. Crabwoe and sons v. C. Trickletiank. Chuni £50, for dwhbnered pidmis>ory note. Mr A. S. Baker for plaintiff, and Mr Gr. F. Hawkins for defeuflant. Olaiiu for" balance of purchase money owing on pipe-making machine sold to defen- , <knt. It would appear that defendant , gave 00 ,cash at the time of pure' ' chase, and various bills afterwards ■which were dishonored renewed aud ' again dishonored. ' Mr juicer had to complain to the bench of the annoying manner m ■which the defendant answered ques- : tidns put to liim. The Magistrate , agreed with counsel, that the witness was very provoking. On being asked . t by Mr Baker if a certain promissory ""' note given was a renewal, Trickler l>ank stated that he never intended to ' ' pay ' the bill when he gave it. Mr : Ba r ker then took his seat. . 5 Mr G> F. Hawkins then examined : : the witness and with great difficulty '' %6t anYthing but satisfactory answers from his own client. It was stated • the machine on first trial could not; be used ; that i« was very much out of order, and had to be repeatedly repaired. The evidence taken for de--1 fence was extremely lengthy and went principally to show that fraud and misrepresentation had been used to , c , obtain the promissory note. N The Bench pointed out it would be best for Mr Hawkins without going any further to allow a judgment to be given to the plaintiff and then he could take action for i'riuid. Mr Hawkins was quite willing to take this course bnt Mr Baker objected and the cane therefore proceeded. Judgement wits eventually given for plainjjtjflv execution to be stayed for 3 weeks to give the defendant time to ; -,a take. a cross action for irnud* : j. >F. Heaton v. Win. Weeks*.— Claim, 1 2s. Judgment for plaintiff and costs. '-" ' JT. Nathan and Co., y. T. Nelson. — ,; : Claim, £5 Os 9d. Mr Hawkins for !*.' ". plaintiff, Mr J. H. Hankins for Mr i'.,i Bounn (concerned m the ease). m ;jt would ippear that on the 11th •September last Mr Nelson gave an '. order for certain goods which he [1 afterwards called .'for. ," '' Mr Bounn, till lately, employed at the store, deposed to receiving and '; executing the order, he made out the v bill and got Mr Short, clerk, to check it. Several people were waiting at the time to be attended to. He took a parcel of money from Mr Nelson (notes and cheque) and m the hurry did not count it, but placed it m the „ till and afterwards transferred it with ■, other cavh to • the cash box.; The amount of the bill ; was £26 O.s 9d. Mr, King, manager of ihe. stove, was ; thaii day m Foxton, he returned the nextjjay' and was informed by Mr ; : . . Short pit jiiscrepencyin the cash^oods ,■ -having been sold to Nelson anvonut.l ing to -C 26 Os 9d and cash received - frbui : shop only counting dE2li Mr '- Bohnn cbnld give no further information of the error than that he had taken the money from Nelson m payment on the account and had r.d placed itiii the, till believing it to be the full amount, Mr King and Mr Short" drove out the same' night to lir Nelson's place at Ashurst and having seen him got the receipted ac count and forwarded it to Wellington to the head of the -firm jthere wWhen Nelson came m to town and «* what action had been taken he offered to pay the difference rather than any of the TemployeSjof the '\ Cfir^ghould suffer, bul Mr King refused then to accept it. Mr Bounn Uhrpugh the, negligence of Ms action '* lost his situation, and Nelson on being asked afterwards to pay the amount short, refused, as Mr Bounn had lost his situation it Iteing sim ply to prevent this he had made che offer. Both Mr Bang, (Manager), and Mr • Short the clerk, exonerated Mr Bounn : from any further blame than negligence, they believed Mr Bonnn to bethoroughly honest. Mr Nelson r also testified. : jtp Mr ,Bounn ? a character as being thorougly upright m his bel ief . TBe Bench having recalled; Mr Bcmon and further questioned him was ; satisfied the amount had been paid short of thai required on the Dil],arid gave j ndgnient for the. plaintiff against Nelson with costs of - court. *' Fonton v. B. W. Perkins. £$ 13s. Mr Hankins for plaintiff, Mr Perkins was represented by Mr F. Mowlem holding power ' of attorney. Judgment for plaintiff . for £11 3h. and costs 10s: JUDGMENT SUMMONS. It. AUingham v. J. Montague.. , Claim JE3 llg, no appearance of de- " fendant, to be paid forwith.in default 4|day» imprisonment. . F;T. Collins v. J. &H; Sheerin: Claim £18 17s. Offer of £3 per month niade l>y defendant aud accepted, by the plaintiff on recommendation *^f the court. . r ''','^."^B^,Siuitecl.^.B.. King: Claim £11 jls fd: MV I. H. Hankins for judge- , ment creditor, no appearance of defendant; Opder of the court to pay forwith, m default 4 days imprison 'ment: '''.;'/ ' ' : INTERPLEADER SUMMONS H. T. Flyger v. Flyger Malcolm & Co. Mr J. H. Hankins for Mr Flyger and Mr Staite for Mr Grammar, claimant. This case originated as follows. A buggy owned by Fiyger, Malcolm & Co, when that firm was in business, was placed by them in charge of Goodison, they having the use of it when required. Malcolm having left the country owing Goodison some £1 or £5, the latter stuck to the buggy for his claim and subsequently placed it with Halcombe & Sherwill for sale at their Ashurst yards. Mr Grammar here purchased the vehicle paying some £22 for it. After this Mr H. T. Flyger sued Messrs Flyger, Malcolm & Co. for an amount and got judgment, had the buggy seized at Mr Grammar's place at Ashurst by order of distress. Mr. Grammar paid into court the value placed on the trap by the bailiff and took the present action in order to ascertain to whom the property seized really belonged. The Bench decided in favor of H. T. Flyger. The seizure declar ed to be legally executed and that Mr Grammar would therefore have to take other action to right himself. ASSAULT. Anna Peek v. J. T. Bray. MpJ.

H. Hanbina for complainant, anil Mr Staitefor accused, who was charged with assaulting the former by striking her ia the face. Anna Peck on being sworn deposed that the accused struck her violently over the face hurting her and causing ' ,her face to swell leaving a mark fora couple of day*. Elizabeth Peck' sister of the complainant gave corroborative evidence. The accused swore that he meivlv tapped her with the tips of hi* fingers, at the name time that he denied a false statement she made about him having taken a liberty with a married woman. The Bench fined the accuned 40s and costs; iv all £5 2s. The Bench remarked it was an unmanly act to strike a woman tit any time,but more especially under these circumstances.