Untitled

Auckland Star, Volume I, Issue 69, 29 March 1870, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.—Tuesday. ! (Before T. Beckham, Esq., District Judge.) Defended Cases Continued. FOLEY V. M4.IR. This was a case which was heard yes terduy, judgment being reserved. His Honor gave judgment for plaint?ff for £20. The question of costs was referred to Tauranga. Mr. Wynn applied that this question might be settled at once, because otherwise it would be merely referring it to the defendant himself, the Resident Magistrate for that district. His Honor was under the impression that Mr. Clarke sat for Tauranga. Mr. Wynn replied, and defendant was then sworn and examined in ths matter. He said Mr. Clarke does sit at Tauranga, but whenever Mr. Clarke is unable to attend witness sat. Mr. Wynn, holding that the case was a proper one for trial in the District Court, consequently costs ought to be allowed. Mr. Brookfield, on the contrary, contended that plaintiff's evidence showed that the case was not one of damages, but rather one of personal pique, in order to increase the costs. There was nothing to prevent the case being tried at Tauranga. Mr. Wynn donied this. Neither pique nor damage had anything to do with the case. The real question at issue was, how was the law to be administered at Tauranga ? , The Court was of opinion that the case was one which might have been heard at Tauranga. , •

GOr.DEX GATE GOT- MINING CO--?ANT. The application for an order to wind up this company, supported by Mr. Weston and opposed by Mr. Recs, was then heard. The Court decided that unless cause to the contrary were shown on the next regular sitting day of the Court, the order would be made absolute. OWEN & GP-HAM V. VEALE. Claim £ _ ; Mr. Weslon for plaintiff; Mr. Rees and Mr. Sheehan for defendants. This case was adjourned yesterday for the purpose of filing an immediate defence. Mr. Rees, it appears, had omitted to furnish plaintiff's solicitor with a copy of the defence filed until just before the sitting the Court. He said : Would his friend Mr. Weston be content with the plea not to furnish ? It was simply a plea of general denial. Mr. Weston ; Must decline to accept the course proposed. He was utterly unable to go on with the case ; he could not possibly get the evidence he required to prove his case. Mr. Rees said the question was one of seaworthine9_J; of a vessel undera charter party, which plaintiffs claimed to have had repaired, owing to her not bern? as represented in the charter party. This' defendant entirely denied. A lengthy argument ensued. His Honor decided that the case should be heard, and defendant and his witnesses should be examined, on payment of yesterday's costs. The course should not be taken as a precedent, but he would be no party to any injustice being done, and he saw that such might be the result of refusing to take the case. Otherwise the hearing would have to be adjourned to the next sitting day of the Court. Mr. Lodge, the Clerk of the Court, pointed out that the defence had not been filed. His Honor said that this materially altered the matter, and the case must go on. The defendants could not be heard. (Left sitting.)