RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.— This Day.

Auckland Star, Volume VI, Issue 1625, 30 April 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.— This Day.

(Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., R.M.)

Judgments for Plaintiffs. John Haynes v. Wm. Hnr^shorn, clann£7 10s Id :' wages; James Wheeler v. Wm Hartshorn, claim-£lO 4s Jd: wages (Mr Brock for plaintiffs), costs-£2 15s ; Charles Sutton v. John C. Sextie, claim-£5 : conch (Mr Meyer for plaintiff), costs-£1 4s od; W. J. Messenger v. A. Parkinson, claim — £3 Is Gd (10s per week); John Grey v. Fanny Purcell, claim—£2o : goods. EMMA WWLLS V. HENRY MILLS.

Claim £10 16s 6d. Mr Tlees for Mr Joy for plaintiff, Mr Brookfield for defendant. 'ibis adjourned case in which defendant considered he was not indebted, as the goods and money were had by bis wife who was in the enjoyment of a protection order. Mr Rees stated that he was prepared to shew that Mr and Mrs Mills were occupying the same room at the time the goods were supplied, and that the husband shared the goods received from Mrs Wells. He appeared for Mr Joy, who was unable to attend to business on account ot ill-health. His Worship suggested a settlement between counsel, if possible, without making disclosures. Mr Brookfield said he was willing to leave the case in the hands of one gentleman. Mr Rees said he would agree to this arrangement. Mr Hesketh was named, and mutually accepted. STEWART AND APPLEBY V. W. E. MONT-

GOMERY,

Claim, £20. Mr Kees for plaintiffs,

Mr Hesketh for defendant. _ This was a claim for commission. The plaintiffs were commission agents, and defendanh the proprietor of the Swan Hotel, Mechanics' Bay. John P. Stewart knew defendant, and stated that in March last he heard that defendant wished to dispose of his hotel. He went to him upon the subject; he said his hotel was for sale. He asked for particulars as he had a buyer. Hefgave the;necessary particulars and it was agreed, should the purchaser come forward, that he was to receive five per cent. He found a purchaser in Mr Gleeson, of the Aurora E otel, who met bim on the I Oth instant at Montgomery's hotel. Mr Montgomery said he had been thinking the matter over, and five per c«nt. was too much. He then agreed to take £20. He introduced Mr Gleeson, who wished to see the house. Defendant then spoke with his wife, who said she would not consent to sell, as he was always doing something foolish. Mr. Montgomery then said, " You see how it is, my wife won't sell. I am willing to sell, but my wife won't go out." He then wrote a polite note to Mr. Montgomery, d»«ifing him to see him at his (plaintiff's) office.

To Mr. Hesketh : Mr. Gleeson was prepared to give £500 there and then as soon as the deads were signed. The particular were four years and nine months lease to run, Tent £2 15s. per week ; a cottage let at ss. per week, to come off the £2 15s, and tbe hotel stock and furniture, exclusive of private furniture and piano. John Edward Appleby corroborated the statement of his partner.

Patrick Gleeson deposed that in consequence of a communication from plaintiff, he went to the Swan Hotel, for the purpose of being shewn over the house. He was introduced to Mr Montgomery by Stewart : the business was then meationed, and Mr Montgomery went io cousult his wife ; she said she would have no objection to sell, provided that he had a place to put her and his children in. He did not press the matter but left the house. He had instructed Mr Appleby to look for a suitable house. William Martin Montgomery, proprietor of the Swan, remembered Mr Stewart coming to him on the 4th March, and asking if he wanted to leave his house. He replied "yes." He gave him a general idea of the fixtures, etc. Tbe sum named was £500. On Stewart saying he could get him a purchases, he told him that he had already agreed on the sale to Mr Whitson; which occured in January. Stewart thensaid "You are not tied to MrWbitsoD, I suppose." He replied he was not b.'uod to Mr W hitson by agreement, but as he had given his word he would not break it. He had allowed persons to inspect the premises ; but on that occasion, it being nine o'clock in the morning, it was not con- i venient to Mrs Montgomery, and he did not' interfere with her affairs. JHJad Mr Gleeson looked over the honse, he should have referred him to Mr Whitson, as the house >vas in his hands. He never said that his wife would not go out. He said his wife objected to shew the rooms. It was.nine o'clock in the morning, and they were not cleared up. Mr Robert Whitson, brewer, deposed that on the 3rd January defendant spoke to him about getting rid of the house ; he, asked £500. Witness told him to make his mind easy: he would find a customer, and he would guarantee him £500 for it. He took the house on his hands for that purpose. Counsel on both sides addressed the jury. His Worship remarked upon the evidence, that the plaintiffs had failed to make out their case. Mr Rees accepted a nonsuit.