RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.-Yesterday.

Thames Advertiser, Volume VII, Issue 1874, 25 July 1874, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.-Yesterday.

(Before \V. Frasbk, JSsq., 8.M.,) -. John Wade v. Daniel DALB.--Claim, £715s 10J for goods. £118s 9J and 8s costs were piid into Court. I'he evidence had been heard last Court-day. His Worship

now gave judgment for the balance, and costs £2 4s. W. (i. OIIICK y. NIKOEIIU Poutot*ka.—Claim, £20 14s for rates.-—His Worship said ho could not see his way to giving a judgment in this case, as the ground rated was occupied by a native, and belonged to a native. He recommended the plaintiff to consult the Hoard's solicitor before implicating the trustees in seeking a judgment. There was a discussion between the bench and the bar relating to the liability for rates of aboriginal natives. His Worship con* sidered ihc case of such importance that ho would recommend him to consult the Board and the Board's solicitor,- so that no trouble should arise hereafter.—''he plainliff then applied (bran adjournment, and the case was adjourned lor a for a fortnight. Judgment Summons.—Hone Nalie v. .Joseph Buckley.—This was a claim for £4 lis, amount for which a judgment had been given. Mr Macdouald, for the plaintiff, examined the defendant, who deposed that he did not pay the amount because the whole thing was a swindle. —He was ordered to pay the money to-morrow, and failing payment he would be sent to gaol for a month.

Judgment for Puintifps—W.Jacobs v. !(. Cox: I his was a claim for £3 14s for goods supplied. Defendant did not appear. i?laintiff appeared to'have only a vague notion of the amount for which defendant was indebted to him. It was over the amount claimed. His books showed that defendant owed him £4. Judgment for the amount claimed, and costs £117s.—Robert Mc I'urk v. Samuel Montgomery: This was a claim for Bs, rates. I'he defendant said that the road which was being made was no benefit to the miners. They had a good tramway, and required no inore. Mr Tyler for the plaintiff. The plaintiff proved the indebtedness of the defendant and the demand made upon him for payment. F. 0. Dean produced the rate book. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, and costs 10s.—Same v. Same: Claim 7s, for rates. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs 10s.— &. Mc i urk v. Charles Pyne: j his was a claim for 10s rates duo to the Waiotahi District Board for one year, and 7s due for another year. Judgments were given as in former cases, Defendant said that he had been summoned previously by Mr Dean and appeared, but there was no appearance of the plaintiff. He asked to be granted costs. His. Worship sail in the second case he would give judgment without costs. That would be the same as allowing him 10s for his day's attendance on the former occasion. — David Schofield v. J. O. D. Bowden; claim for £11 2s 6d, tuition fees. Judgment by consent for £9 8s without costs.

.NoNStm' — Janio? Craig v. Alexander Bruce: This was a claim for the sum of £25 commission. Mr Macdonald and Mr Brassey for plaintiff j vlr Tyler for the defendant. James Oraig deposed: lam an auctioneer and commission agent. Some timo prior to this transaction Mr Bruce wished to sell his interest for a small sum. Afterwards the claim became valuable, and I asked him what he would take, but ho said ho would not take less than £1,000. I said L believe Mr Thomas, would buy it. I afterwards spoke to Mr Thomas and introduced them. All the furttier transactions were through Mossrs Macdonald and Miller. His Worship said that aocording to Mr Oraig's own statement he had no claim for commisuon from the defendant. After some argument, tho defendant was put in the box,. He lately sold the Uoyalty lioense for £1,000. He kn-nv Mr Uraig to be a commission agent. They had some conversation about the Loyalty claim. Witness did not discuss with him the value of the claim. Mr Oraig told him that he thought Mr Thomas or the Thames Gr.M.U. would buy it. Witness afterwards met Thomas in the Pacific Ifotel. Ho was not aware what led Thomas to come to him. He said he would come up and see the olaim on Monday. They had been talking about tue crushing. Thomas did not tell wituess ttiat Oraig had been speaking to himabout it. Thomas went up on the Monday. They bargained and settled the! price, tie did not tell Thomas that he (witness) would have to pay Craig's com* mission. Oraig wont with Thomas to the claim on the Monday. Thomas asked him to go. Ho at first refused, but afterwards went. He did not interfere in the transaction, nor so far as witness knew did he ever interfere. Witness never employed him to find a purchaser or sell the claim. '' Bid ward Thomas, agent for the Thames G.M.0., was also examined. He spoke to Bruce because Craig told him that, he (Bruce) had a piece of ground for sale. He saw Bruce the same oveniag, and made an appointment to meet him on Monday. There was no mmtion made of Oraig between Bruce; and witness.—Mr Macdonald addressed the Court. .Plaintiff was nonsuited. At the suggestion of the Beooh. tkedoibu,*. daaUidaoUliumcgjitv