RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.— This Day.

Auckland Star, Volume VII, Issue 2095, 26 October 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.— This Day.

(Before It. C. Barstow, Esq., 8.M.) J. W. Hoare v. John Banyan—claim, £25 Ok 7(1 ; promissory note; ousts, £2 2s. Archibald Hamilton v. Henry Adie—claim, £2(>s'4d; bread; costs. £1 4s"b'd. Defendant said he was a, very poor man, and had been out of work some time ; he would willingly pay if he could. Mr George, who appeared for plaintiff, consented to take 5s a week. SAMUEL yiCKEHS V. EDWARD COMBES. Claim, £35 Is 9d.

Mr Thome for plaintiff. MrVickers deposed that defendant was indebted to him for the amount due on a promissory note, which had been duly presented and dishonored.

James Brown,, clerk, knew Mr Edward Combes ; knew his signature, and saw him sign the note.

Judgment for plaintiff. Costs, £3 17s, JAM US 11. GRATTAN V. WM. LLOYD.

Claim £26 13s,

Mr Thorite" for plaintiff and Mr James Russell for defendant.

James Henry Grattan deposed that the defendant gave him a promissory note for £25, dated ;3rd September, payable three mouths after date, tho note was not given for his convenience, but for board and lodging supplied to defendant, &

To Mr Russell : He was not aware that there were writs unsatisfied at the time, the debt was incurred at the North Shore. William Lloyd, deposed that he paid all that he owed, and never owed so much money to Mr Grattan ; paid him regularly £5, a month ; he left in November 1874 ; the promissory note was given in September ot last year for Mr G rattan's accommodation not for a debt. He did not owe Mr Grattan a penny, nor had Mr Grattan applied to him for money.

Mr Grattan said he had frequently asked defendant for payment; the note was given for 25 weeks' board and lodging at 20s a week. " l

% His having considered the evidence, gave judgment for plaintiff for the whole amount, costs £111s.

. SARAH WOOD V. J-AMKS JOHNSO.N

Mm Wood deposed that she was a mid-wife and nurse in Wakefleld-street. She had lived there in her capacity, for nine years, She had followed her profession successfully since 1815. Defendant's wife was taken suddenly in lahr~:^ and as it was necessary to have the servigji^ ) n nkilfnl nerson to see to her, she was sent-~; W ■ Drltockweu?andDr Kenderdine Shehaffl verbal agreement as to payment; but aftor she had been thoro a fortnight, Mrs Johnson asked her about pay.and when she told her 30s a week, she said that will be £3. I must get a nurse choaper. Mr Johnson was away Irom home at James Johnson deposed that he lived in Vic-toria-street, andlthat Mrs Wood pleaded poverty, and offered to stay for 15s a week, and ho paid hor what he-thought was due to her. Another woman had offered to do the washing, clean and sponged the baby, and cook for los a week, and Mrs Wood agreed to do the same. Mrs Wood said the statement was false,-sha did not agree to such terms, and a3 for poverty, she had always been able to keep a home over herhead. . ~ His Worship said there was evidently some misunderstanding between them. Judgment for £1, costs 9a. To be paid by the Ist of December. ADJOTTKXED CASES. Thomas Holland v. John Hogan, claim SP lls lOd • James Glee3on v. Samuel Cooper claim £112s 6d; Thomas Faulder v. James Grace, claim £33 7s: F. Shcphard v. Theodore Walker, claim £4 19s lOd ; Morton Jones v. George Cottes, claim £12 9s Bd. This was all the business.