RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Manawatu Times, Volume VIII, Issue 377, 5 October 1883, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

YESTERDAY. '■;■•[■] ; - QSefore E-. Ward, Esq , R.M.) ;v ' PV iVi Venn v H: J\ -Lloyd., — Claim, 414 13a 3d. Mr Perkins plaintiff, applied for an adjournment to next Court, which was grantfed. : Q. W. Eussell (ftlanawatu Datlt Times) v Samuel Eowley. — Claim, . : J32, for advertising and; subscription to paper. No appearance :of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff for ampnnt and costs. . .;'/.;; ', ; Stewart & Co. v W.. Ei^neJ-^ Claim £2 -19s . Id, op judgment ;». summons. r ; Mr jerkin siforplajri tiff, "said a letter "had teen received from defenadnt, offering 30s do wo? and the balance at a future time.— His. "- • Worship said as. defendant did not! appear, he would order the amount, to be paid forthwith, m default ;14 day's imprisonment m Napier Gaol, the defendant residing at that place ; atpreaent. : n j Same v. J. J. Jansen.-r-Claim £2; : 13s lid. Judgment by default for amount and 'costs. :; >. }■ Gh.E. Hawkins y % J. Buickr- • Claim L2o, for damages done, to the' • 4. ■pksttu.'age of 16 acres of land at \l Jackeytown, leaned to plaintiff; through defendant's sheep- trespass - sing. Mr Perkins for plaintiff, and '•' Mr Hankins for defendant. The plaintiff gave evidence to the effect - , that he was m possession, of-, the > land, which was near defendants, " and that through Bnick's - sheep r trespassing the pasturage ; r was dV '"'■' strpyed.-r Martin; Bpesen,- •?&&•*» ; .Collis, J. Christiansen, D. Rowlands i ■-. i»nd H. Graff were also called vby the plaintiff m support of his case; 4 1 "The case for the defence was -that iince the erf ctioujof the fence defefljdants ' '"'' sheep bad not trespassed .'off plaintiff's ; laid. Before then the two were:;good friends and there was. a sdVtof ;.taeit understanding that the sheep might /: pasture there. Defendant gave evidence to ttie effect that t c fence rbunditn? padi ;. dock was. only a /'substitute"; fence, • i»hd the paddock itself was half bush* - and half an old Maori cjearing. lie denied that any! of his sheep except j a few old ewes were brandepVas des.? ; critied by plaintiff's witnesses- William i! ! Bmck also gave evidence for the defence His Worship said the evidence showed : a tresspass had been ; ;'c6tmitt©c| ? ; but it : :; 'to* difficult ib assess the :r ambtint ©fr ;,.' damage!^ Bethought i^^ould, -feirly compensate the plaintiff,, and -• -for gave judgment for that amount and-, oo»ts£6a2s. :• h „■; X Mary Dungan v Chas Pownall, or >im iWellingfon.-T-Claim. £1 ;10sv|- Mrc „ .Perkins, for plaintiff, stated that on • the previous day he had received j a i telegraphic order for 4>l iQs ; but yg' ,i; ; ; ; this amount did not cpver, costs, he ; / would apply for judgment., Mate with costs. • ">^ Same v Henry Border. — Claim dB2 k % i^LOs, for advertising adjourned. Adrt ft v Spurned to next Court, so that defeno -.""4ailt might give (evidence at T Wei-. >-'v.'BHygton..- Mr Perkinß for plaintiff. ' ISajiae y. W. Deards- -Claim L 5, for/^yiartisingi Mr Perkins for' plaintiff, Mr Hawkins for defends ant, who did not appear. This case ; was a curious one. Evidence went to' : show that defendant waited on thY V Clerk t)f the Court before leaving - the district, aiid asked if any sum■- ■ xnonses were put lagaiDst- him. He ;ww of the pregentvone^ and; flfj^rwards Awaited upon^re£>ungak land represented that the- adyprtise^ imeht was not ordeised " and thajti % fllerefpfe he could repudiate the idlaiinjVbut that as the adyertisemeritCha^d appeared he was willing- to pay" something, but Mrs Dungan must. jtate^e amount. Mrs H>ungaj£ 5 the matter must be' referred ix> fe-Mi? Perkins, he being solicitor fojr, the instate, but that gentleman being "^ away from town, -Mrs Dungan, ait-; Mr DeardsV request, agreed on his to take the. sum of : of the accpunt.,^ fMr Beards m the meantime j-having s the summons waited, on Mr, Per^kms and showed him the receipt,; .„€ sirhichJtW latter declined tojaccepj- '? EyiHence was given, by GK Vf.> Russeitand Q. jL ' Dungan .as to de- ; '•• f ennant having repeatedQy, admitted by te Clerk of the" '- Court as to his having told defend* ant oi the summons/being out, an;d^ by. ; Mr_Perkina 1 of bis interview with defendant. Mr Hawkins' defence; that the receipt m full produced --^was given and "accepted inCgood faith on each side, and must stand ; whereas Mr Perkins contended that a Receipt, though given m good faith, if obtained by misrepresentation, <was valueless. His Worship saul this view was, clear to bis mind. Judgment for amount and co|ts. *^ i *The Court then.rose^