RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.- This Day.

Auckland Star, Volume VI, Issue 1822, 17 December 1875, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.This Day.

(Before R. C. Barstow, Esq., R.M.) JUDGMENTS FOR PLAINTIFF.

W.Galbraith v John Conn, claim £516s 6d. .Judgment had been obtained against defending who pleaded poverty as the cause of non-payment.' 2a 6d per week, or failing to psy, thirty days imprisonment. John Kelly t. James Chapman, claim £9 7s 3d, goods. jbis was a similar case to the preceding, a judgment having been obtained against pendant in 1869. 5a a week, or failing, thirty days imprisonment. W. Britton v. Elizabeth Kyaa, claim £1 13s 4d, bread. 2s per week, or failing, 14 days imprisonments. J Porter and Co. v. David Lindsay, claim J21716s 3d, goods. (Mr Thome for plaintiff) Costs, £2 103. Thos. "Wilson v George Isaacs. Claim, £1 Bs, rent, costs, £1 4s 6d. J S. Macfarlane v. Chaa. Burton, (Mr Hesfceth for plaintiff.) Claim, £29 103 ; costs, £3125. pAWETi AND TAYLOK V. PATRICK DILLON. Claim £15 13s Bd.

This claim/ in which Mr Hesketh appeared for plaintiff and Mr Dufaur for defendant, ijis for repairs and alterations done to defendant's house in-the Graf ton-road. The defence ipas that the work was not properly done, bat overwhelming evidence was adduced to shew to the contrary. Hiß Worship, having carefully weighed {he evideDce, gave judgment for plaintiffs with costs, £3 ss. JAMES JOHN MILLS V. PETER M'COMISH. Claim, £20 3a sd. This claim, by mutual consent, had been leftover for arbitration, Mr P. G. Ewington being appointed arbitrator. The award, amounting to £15 10s Bd, was handed in, which, with £4 17s 2d costs, amounting to £20 7s lOd. T. HOLLAED V. K. MITCHELL. Claim £4 10s. In this case Mr Dufaur stated that a judgment had been obtained in favor of plaintiff; the defendant had paid ss, but nothing since: and as he was in good work and would not pay, he would ask for an order of commitment to prison. His Worship, suggested that if there was a chance of getting the money, it would be better to let it stand over until next Court day.

Mr Holland, deposed that the defendant was in good work, and could well afford 5s a week. An order was made accordingly. WM. TAYLOR V. JOHN MOLLER. Claim, £2 11s. 4d.

Mr. Joy and Mr. Thorne appeared in the csee, in which the plaintiff had failed on several previous occasions to put in an appearance.

h was arranged to arbitrate in the matter; «till defendant stood aloof. It was decided that Mr. Hesketh should take evidence and adjudicate, and whether Moller appeared or not, Mr. Heaketh's decision should be final on the 3rd of January. Adjourned Cases. Hogh McCormick v. Thos. Hull: Claim, £1 3s. ; Holloway and Garlick v. W. H. Oldrey : Claim, £9 12s. Bd. WM. HODGSON V. JAMES CONLEY. Claim, £119a. In this a judgment had been given for plaintiff, but defendant, not being satisfied, applied for a re-hearing of the case, but he Was too poor to pay the costs. His Worship said he could not grant a rehearing until defendant was prepared to give some Bort of security. Mr. Thome said the claim was for two tons of wood, etc., the amount of which Mrs Conley admitted, declaring she would sell her cow rather than not pay for the wood. His Worship said he would grant a rehearing of the case on condition that defendant paid the costs in the meantime; the costs would be 15s 6d, to be paid by the 31st December.

HOLLOWAY AND GAELICK V. "W. H. OLDREY. Claim, £9 12s Bd. Mr Hesketh asked that this case might be heard, as Mr Garlick had been to the wrong Court.

Mr Garlick said it was ten years since he had been into Court, hence the mistake. The case was then called on and judgment giren for plaintiff, costs £2 Is.

JOHN MATSON V. DAVID MILLER. Claim £25. Mr Brookfield appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Hesketh for defendant. This was a claim for rent. John Matson, baker, of Kelson-street, deposed that he was the owner of property near Cox's Creek of which defendant until recently was the occupier. He purchased we property in August last, and believed •hat Mr Miller was aware of it—in fact he toid him so.

His Honor remarked upon the pecnliarities w the case in respect of the purchase and notice, which ho must take time to consider.