RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume I, Issue 179, 5 August 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday.

[Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., R.M.] Undefended Cases. judgment for plaintiffs.

Impc rial Crown Gold Mining Company v. 1 Woon, 10s, calls; T. &S. Morrin v. J. Lundon, £14 10s; Posseniskie v. Clarkson, £6 10s goods; Meyers v. Somerton, £5 6s 6d, balance of account; Cozens v. Joyce, £3 lis, 1.0. U.; Watt v. Clarke, £6 17s ; North Island Gold Mining Company v. Mason, £5, calls; T. & S. Morrin v. Williams, £1 2s 6d, goods ; Tapu Groat Republic Gold Mining Company v. Clarke, £4 19s, calls ; Auckland Consolidated Gold Mining Company v. R. M. Heighton, £3 12s 6d. Cases Adjourned. North Island Gold Mining Company v. Burton, £5, calls; same v. Godkin, £5, calls ; same v. Hewen, £5, calls ; L. R. James v. R. Harris, £2 6s 6d ; Wild Missouri Gold Mining Company v. George Bennett; Auckland Consolidated Gold Mining Company v. Tassell, £18 15s, calls ; Steenson v. Borthwick, wages, £4. Judgments Confessed, Townsend v. Coffey, £5 18s, goods ; trustees of Meyers' estate v. D. Phillip, £9 9s Bd, goods. Defended Cases, henry duffy v. atkinson. £4 Bs. lid., for goods delivered. The question in dispute was, whether the goods supplied were for the defendant or his mother. Mr. Wynn for the plaintiff; Mr. Joy for the defendant. Judgment for the plaintiff. NORTH ISLAND GOLD MINING COMPANY V. DAVIS. £5, calls. Mr. Wynn for the plaintiff; Mr. MacCormick for the defence. After hearing evidence, the Court gave judgment for the defendant. NORTH ISLAND GOLD MINING COMPAKY T. EDMONDS. Calls, £5. SAME T. EDMONDS. £5, calls. SAME Y. HOPTMAN. £5, calls. In all these cases, judgment passed for the defendants. BELL Y. STEVENS. Claim, £5, for rent. Mr. MacCormick for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wynn for the defence. Judgment for plaintiff. LITTLE Y. MENZIES. Claim, £3, for wages. Mr. Wilson for the plaintiff, Mr. Wynn for the defendant.

Mary Emma Little deposed that she was formerly in the employ, as barmaid, of Mr. Menzies, of the Victoria Hotel, Victoriastreet. She received a week's notice to leave, which expired on the Monday, when she left, between* three aud four in the afternoon. Just before she left, she asked for her money, which defendant refused to give her, saying "that she had entered on a fresh week, and he should not pay her unless she stayed the week out." She denied that she had entered on any fresh week, as she came on a Monday, and left on a Monday. The defendant was examined, and stated that on the Saturday when plaintiff's time was up, a fresh arrangement was made whereby she agreed to remain another week, but in the meantime she heard of a situation which would suit her, and wanted to leave, and did leave without notice. He consequently refused to pay her wages. Judgment for plaintiff,