DISTRICT COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume III, Issue 727, 13 May 1872, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

THIS DAY. (Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., District Court Judge). Tnß bi-monthly sitting of this Court was held in Eden street this morning. The following causes were cried out: — CHABLES MOLLEB T. JEREMIAH CASEY AND OTHEBS.—JUDGMENT. His Honor gave judgment as follows in tbis now famous suit: —"On behalf of the defendants it has been urged that the plaintiff must either take a nonsuit or that judgment must pass for the defendants, ' because he has not proved the registered tonnage of the Na Noba;' but it will be at once apparent how untenable that point is when it is borne in mind that the Court has already given judgment on that very issue on the admitted tonnage of defendants' solicitor. Without that fact being ascertained, either by admission or upon beidg proved in the usual way, the Court could not have entertained the point submitted for it 3 consideration during the hearing of the case on tho 25th March, and on which judgment was delivered on the Bfh of April. With reference to the other objection —that Conroy's name should have been joined with plaintiff's—his evidence appears to me conclusive that such a course was unnecessary. We now come to the question really at issue : — 1 Is theumpire's award final ?' As I have before atated in the judgment delivered on this issue raised in a somewhat different form, ' in all cases where parties have agreed that the result of a race or any other subject matter of wages shall be determined by the decision of a particular judge chosen by themselves, they must abide by the decision of the person whom they constituted judge—that iB, in all cases •where the event was under the jurisdiction of the umpire.' By the programme it appears the race in which the vessels, the subject of the present action, comoeted, was for 'trading vessels registered in Auckland over 30 tons.' It has been admitted that the Na Noba was much under the ' registered tonnage,' and on that admission the Court has ruled that she was disqualified, and could not be in the race ; but it has been since argued on behalf of the defendants that 'as the umpire was aware that she was under the required tonnage at the time of making his award, his decision must be final.' The umpire in his evidence states ' I built both vessels (that is the Dauntless and Na Noba) ; the Na Noba's registered tonnage is 30 tons; 1 but he says ' I did not adjudicate on that point. I made my award on the question whether the Na Noba was a trading vessel or not.' It further appears that the award was made without the plaintiff being heard. Had the umpire given his decision on the question of tonnage, however erroneous it might have been, it would have been final; but he did not do so. It therefore appears to me that what would have been the foundation of the umpire's authority to award the stakes has failed— that he awarded the stakes without jurisdiction, the condition precedent upon which it would attach. lam therefore of opinion that judgment must be recorded for the plaintiff. I think the ruling in the case of Sadler v. Smith fully bears out my opinion." Costs were declared to be £9 Bs.

JOHN ROBERTON ANiJ CO. V. JOSEPH MASLEN. Claim £35 17s. 6d., promissory notes. Mr. J. B. Ru&sell for plaintiff. Judgment passed for the amount claimed with costs. MATTHEW HENDERSON V. THOJfAS MACFARLANE. Claim £100, services. Mr. Rees (for plaintiff) stated that the questions in dispute between the parties had been referred to arbitration. Mr. Beveridge ■was defendant's so!icitoi\ Withdiawn accordingly. MCARTHUR, BHERA AND CO. V. 10TTI8 KATM. Claim, £22 ss. 4:1., goods. Mr. Thome for plaintiffs. The debt was proved, and the verdict passed for plaintiffs. JOHN NEALE AND CO. V. HEOTOB MACKENZIE. Claim, £100, goods. By request of Mr. Sheehan an adjournment till to-morrow was granted. IIXEWJIiL AND RATTRIY V. nENRY MORGAN. Claim, £86 13s. 2d., bill of exchange. Evidence was produced, and judgment given for the amouut named with costs. THOMAS JENKINS V. P. DIGNA"NT. This was a claim for highway rates to the tune of £47 6s. against defendant in his capacity of executor of one J. Campbell. Mr. Hesketh for plaintiff; Mr. Sheehan for defendant. By consent of his Honor proceedings wero adjourned till next Court-day. SAMUEL CAMMZCK V. WM. GEORGE CONNOIiLY. Claim, £100, damages. Mr. MacCormick informed the Court that a judgment for £50 with costshad bean agreed i to by Mr. Hesketh (for defer danfc) ; and this would be considered satisfactory by the parties j concerned. Judgmeut for £50, with £8 Is. costs. EDWARD BRADY T. JOHN MOT.I/ATIjY Claim, £90, damages. Mr. Rees for plaintiff; Mr. W, EL Kissling for defendant. After a short consultation it was arranged'in this suit that a certain horse in dispute should be returned by defendant, and that he should pay £fi 6s. costs. WM. HYDER V. RONAT/O THOMAS GTTNN. Claim, £50 ; damages alleged to have been sustainad by defendant having sold 100 shares of Red Queen Gold Mining Company without plaintiff's authority. The shares were valued at 10s. each.

Mr. Joy for plaintiff; Mr. Hesketh for defendant.

[Left sitting]