DISTRICT COURT.—This Day.

Auckland Star, Volume VI, Issue 1753, 27 September 1875, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.—This Day.

[Before F. D. Fenton, Esq., Acting District Judge.]

HENRY LEWIS V. JOHX LUNDOST.

Claim, £30 7s. Mr. Meyer for plaintiff, who stated that a judgment summons had been obtained again&t defendant, but he had failed to pay. Mr. Lundon said he was unable to meobt the demand, bnt if time was given until he could have the services of Mr. Whitaker, the matter could be settled. In answer to Mr. Meyer, he said he was possessed of 3,000 aores of land at Wanganui, which was worth about 10s. an acre ; there was a mortgage of £1,000 on it. He also had SOO acres in Victoria Valley, which might be worth something. He had a mortgage of £400 on it. Mr. Aitken had £200, and Mr. Armstrong £200 on it, making the £400. He had also an hotel worth £2,000, upon which he had a mortgage of £800. He also had property at the Thames. Mr Meyer said he thought he had shown to the Court that defendant was able to pay, and, if Mr Lundon would give security for the amount of the claim over the hotel, he should feel satisfied. If not, he must ask the Court to make an order for immediate payment.

His Honor said it had not been shown that defendant had any ready money, and he should not be compelled to sacrafice his property. It was at length agreed that Mr Lundon should raise a mortgage on his hotel, and meet the present and other claims, to which he assented, and the case wan adjourned until next Court day. W.M. 0. O'.NEIL AND JOSEPII PATRICK. Mr Kissling for plaintiff. This was a claim of £41 for work done. William Campbell O'N'eill, surveyor, deposed that defendant was indebted for work in assisting him to make a survey, and that the charges were fair and reasonable. Defendant did not appear. Mr Kiasling asked that an order for immediate payment might be made in this case, for reasons which he explained to the satisfaction of the Court. His Honor granted the order. EDWAKD MCMINUB V. W. L TIOTH AND R rCI£ A.RD S A.NDE - SON. Claim, £100, false imprisonment. The plaintiff ia this case was an apprentice to the defendant, Mr Roth, an upholsterer pnd cabinet-maker of Queen-otreet, ani was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for refractory conduct. Adjourned by mutual consent until next court day.