DISTRICT COURT.—This Day.

Auckland Star, Volume V, Issue 1493, 23 November 1874, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.—This Day.

(Bejore His Honor Judge Beckham.) ■ WINKS AND HALT- V. CrtTJMMEB. Claim, £S3 6s 2d. . = -:'.-^ Mr Alexander for plaintiff, and Mr Heaketh for defendant. In this case the plaintiffs' claimed for good* sold aud delivered to the wife of defendant, the particulars of which appeared in the Stab of the lOfck inst. ~;> His Honor in giving judgment sad, .. on looking over the evidence care- . fully, it was clear that Mrs. Crum- x mer was compelled to leave her home after hi 3 confessions ; and that at the time of ordering the goods there was no maintenance made for the woman and her child ren. The defendant also acquiesced in the matter by his promise. The Court therefore, considering all the circumstances of the case mußt record judgment for plaintiff, with costs £S 17s. W. SWANSOX V. T. B. HANXAFORD. Clam £41 6s 9d., promissory notes. Mr James Russell for plaintiff. Mr Hannaford said that his name WM r obtained through fraud, five years ago, and the party who obtained the money was no* est. ■ , Mr Swanson said that the money was due on February 4, 1870. The note was tot.AM, ■ and the £11 6s 9d was interest. He gave £2S 10a for it. Mr Hannaford had acknpw- >} . ledged that it was a Una fide transaction, - although he had but one night's spree out M

it ■ -• '-w His Worship recommended Mr Hannaforf to make his terms with Mr. Swanson, Jiacr v pay it as soon as possible. Judgment for plaintiff. :]\ ALLBN WATERHOUSS V. GKO. BENNETT.

Claim £31 7s 7d.

Mr. James Uussell for plaintiff. This was a claim for a pronijih, sory note of £30, with interest amounting to the sum claimed, due on the 17th January last. > , . Mr Waterhouse having proved the> c™>J»judgment was given for plaintiff, with *?** costs. JOHN MCNEIL V. C. B. C. SMITH. Claim, £29 7s 3d. Mr Hesketh for plaintiff. r v- t This was a claim for goods supplied ; dus aa the parties were not present, the case was adjourned. __ , JUNCTION, ALL NATIONS, AND LONG OTIVB

GOLD MINING COMPAiHSS. , Orders were granted on the aPP 110.^* 0. 1 Mr Buddie, for the winding np of tjese .* several companies previous to their am g» mation. ; n JOHN KENNY V. OWEN JONES AND CO. , .

Claim, £68 18s. 4d. Mr Joy for defendants. Jv<i This was a claim for work done, W» the account was not properly made o*™ was without dates, Mr Joy said the denm ants were unable to enter a defence, x tiff had received above £700, and wasreauy indebted to defendants. , _ t j B His Worship told plaintiff he must P£ y a clear, straightforward account; Dew could go on with the case. . .^.^fift Plaintiff preferred to go to w^Knit His Worship said that even &****#& furnish a proper account. J±e n» t withdraw or adjourn the case in tne pr instance. ./UnnnHn^ Plaintiff consented to » JKJCj. to piy . , until next Court-day, and was willing ; ,, the costs—£4 Ss. m'keill y. smith. . . Mr. Hesketh for plaintiff. ft^a and The plaintiff in this case »g*g£.sl& defendant had,'on Saturday V*£ d * eJ >t of and given him a written acknowledge d his indebtedness for the balance of *W thegoriginaFclaim was £29 78 aa. Judgment for plaintiff. JAMES SMART AND CO., V^ST^-"" WRIGHT. Claim £37 7a 9d. , ,jj &&f Mx Hesketh for plaintiff, and forJMr Commons, of the firm ° t ofr Co. Frederick Stephenson, »b' gin ,rt Kussell, Mr G. W. Heslop, an* J»

.'aJj^^^the counsel on both & dth ue«Sewed the evidence, T. Manning 0H v- j^bert Hardy v. John W^llOO work and labour.