RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.-This Day.

Auckland Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2332, 6 September 1877, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.This Day.

(Before R. C. Barstow, Esq.. E. M.)

JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF

W. H. Skinner v. Wm. Banks, claim 17s, work done ; costs, £1 4s 6d.

JUDGMENT SUMMONSES.

David Fit v. Richard Eeltus, claim £2 3s 6d. Mr Hesketh appeared for the defendant, and stated that there was no wish on the part of defendant to evade payment of the money. The case was at his request allowed to stand over until the 4th October. Richard Reeves v. Wm, Chas. Campbell. Claim £14. —In this case, the defendant did not appear. Mr Thorne, on behalf of the plaintiff, asked that an order might oe made. There were other judgment summonses out against the defendant, and he was almost certain to file his schedule. His Worship made the necessary order for the payment of the money, or in default, two months' imprisonment. John Alexander Beale v. George Glover, claim £11 17s. Mr Hesketh stated on behalf of the defendant that he was willing to pay the money, but had not the means at present. He had some interest in a house, which he was endeavouring to sell. He would pay 5s per week. Mr Beale deposed that tl c defendant was a glazier in the employ of the Union Sash and Door Company. lie had been earning £3 per week, but was now temporarily out of employment, i-rom what defendant had told him', he v,-u.- quite able to pay 10s per week. He «--s going back to the Union Sash and Do ' Company on Monday next, at a sal;i-v of £3 per week. Defendant had told him so. His Worship made an order for 7s 6'd per week, the first payment to he made to-morrow week.

Adjourned Causes.—R. H. Barttlet v. John' Hancock, claim £19, goods. Adjoured for a fortnight, m consequence of illness of defendadt.

DEFENDED CASES. S. Coombes v. S. Cattron, claim £9 16s, drapery and clothing supplied. Mr Colemau for plaintiff, and Mr Brock for defendant. Samuel Qoombes deposed that the goods had been supplied to defendant in the ordinary coarse of business, by Alfred Chappel, 'a salesman in his employ. He was sure of this because the initials " A.C." appeared against the entry in the day-book. The entries were made by Mr Cooke, a clerk in his (plaintiff's) employ. The goods were sent to the Royal Hotel.' He had frequently lent money to the Cattron brothers, of whom there were six ; but he was not aware to which of them he lent the money. Defendant had admitted the debt several times, and promised to pay the money. The witness was cross-examined at considerable length by Mr McKechnie. Alfred Chappell syas called, and deposed to the goods having been supplied by him. He would not swear to which Cattron the goods had been supplied. Stephen Cattron deposed^ that he had been acquainted with plaintiff for about fire years. He had never ordered the goods mentioned m the bill, and had not borrowed any money from the plaintiff at any time. He had met Mr Coombs at the Army and Navy Hotel, whenthatgentleman said he had thought lie (the witness) was the person who owed him the money, but afteiwardt admitted that it was not so. On that occasion, Mr Coombes " shouted" for -witness and his brother. — John Hicks, of the Thames, gave evidence in favour of the defendant. Counsel on both sides addressed the Court at some length in favour of their respective clients. Judgment was given for the defendant. William N. Bradley v. Archibald Camp, bell.—Claim, £1 9s, goods supplied. —Mr Armstrong for plaintiff, and Mr Heskcth for the defendant. —After hearing evidence, judgment was given for the plaintiff with costs, £1 14s Cx\.

(Left Sitting.)