RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. —This Day.

Auckland Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2406, 6 December 1877, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. —This Day.

(Before R. C. Barstow, Esq., E.M.) Judgments for Plaintiffs. . Robert Giles v. John Wayrnonth. Jj""-.— claim, £3 5s 3d (nieat supplied): costs, £1 lis. Mr George for plaintiff. W. Forgie v. J. Hamil. ton-claim, £3 7s 4d (bread); costs, lis, by weekly instalments of 53. Wm. A. Waterman v. Richard Hill-claim, 10s (beds and breakfasts) ; costs, &i Is Gd. Same v. Frederick Rosser -claim. £3 19s (cash lent, board and Jo^nf); costs, £1-Is Gd. Same v. James Uowd-claim, £2 2s Od (dinners, beds, and washing); costs, #1 4s 6d. Mi-Tyler appeared in the three cases for piaintiff. James Eeynofds^Wm.^^O^e-plaim, £22 11s id (ore. note) ; Thomas Weir v. George Mackay-claim, £100, <o take evidence GEO. AND ELIZA BLANDFORD V. K. T. CUttliS. Mr Robinson, for plaintiff, stated the simple circumstances of the case. The claim was ior board and residence. , . _- _ Mr Blandi'ord deposed that defendant gavea promissory note to Mrs Blandford for "value received. She was the holder of the note. --Irs Blandford corroborated, and the Court made an order for immediate payment, witn costs £1 9s. ; JUDGMENT SUMMONS CASES. . John W Hoare v. Charles Lucas, claim £715510 d. ,„ . . , In this ease, Mr Thome for plaintiff, stated that a judgment summons had been obtained against defendant, and every leniency had been given to him Plaintiff had consented to accept 23 6d a week or if defendant would pay down half the money, he would give him a clean receipt. D<fendatt appeared pleased with the fenerous otter, and had been non est from that our.

The Court made an order for half-crown payments, and failing,' to be committed for six weeks, costs, £1 2s. Gee and Potter v. Alexander Davidson, claim, £29 11s Mr Thorne for pla:ntiff, said defendnnt had offered £1, which his clients would accept. Order accordingly, costs, £110s 6d. DEFENDED CASKS. Solomon Reid v. Edward Griffin, claim, £2 10s 2d, goods. Mr George for plaintiff. Defendant denied the claim. Mr Reid deposed to supplying Mrs Griffin with the goods at her residence in Newton, during her husband's absence at the Bay of Islands. Mrs Griffin deposed that she formerly dealt with Mr Reid, but not since June, 1876] when she paid the last bill, £2 0s 6d, with a cheque. She had nothing from the shop since. To Mr George: She did not fling a gingerbeer bottle at the head of Mr Reid's son, did not spit in Mr Reid's face when he asked her about the bill in Kyber Pass. Ellen Copestake heard the boy insult Mrs Griffin, and saw him throw the bill at her, but did not see a bottle flung at the boy's head. His Worship considered Jthat the was positive on both sides, andnon-suited plaintiff, but he might bring his claim forward again supported by testimony. Charles Mack v. R. DeLias, claim £17 10s, commission. Mr Colernan for plaintiff, Mr Devore for defendant. The defendant in this case is at Dune-din, and was O"ly served with the summons at the railway station when leaving Auckland for the South, consequently Mr Devore asked for an adjournment. Mr Coleman said his client was about leaving this city, and as ho had only iust been instructed to appear, he really knew nothing of the case. His Worshipsaid from what he had'earned he thought that an unfair advantage had been taken of defendant, who might have taken proceedings two months before, but instead of doing this, be left the matter to the moment of defendant's departure for the South. Mr Devore said the delay was caused by the amendment of particulars of account. The case was finally adjourned until the 10th day of the new year, with the question of costs. This was all the business.