RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.— This Day.

Auckland Star, Volume IX, Issue 2499, 28 March 1878, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.— This Day.

(Before It. C. Barsiow Esq., R.M.) JUDGHEKTS FOX PLAINTIFFS.

Close Bros. v. Jolm Todhuuter, claim £22 14.3 9d, groceries, (Mr George for plaintiffs). £10 5s had been sent, according to promise made by Mr Brookfteld on behalf of defendant. Judgment for balance, costs £2 15s ; Cooke Bros. v. Robert Atkinson, claim £8 13s Gd, goods, costs £1 2s ; John Jeffrey v. Geo. Warsman, claim £16 17s, for rent, (Mr George for plaintiff) costs £2 ss. ADJOUENED. Elizabeth and Jane Maunders v. Robert Graham, claim £7, trespass ; Charles Mack v. R. DeLias, claim £17 10s; W. and J. Winstono v. Jas. Wilson, claim £6 10s 2d. JUDGMENT DJi3TOK SUMMONSES. H. L. Posseneskie v. Clias. Russell. Claim, £9 2s 2d. In this case the defendant was without means at present, and totally unable to pay his tailor. _ His Worship remarked upon the uselessness of taking out judgment summonses where defendants had no means of meeting claims, •and dismissed the summons. George Bryett v. George Henderson. Claim, £3 14s 6d. This claim was for balance of clothes account, and plaintiff was examined by Mr Lusk as to defendant's means. Mr Bryett deposed that Henderson was employed in the office of Mr Rogan, solicitor, of Gisborne, and was in receipt of 50s per week. He had written several times, promising to pay tho money, but had failed - in keeping his . word. Ordered to pay the amount in two monthly instalments, with costs, 10s, or be committed for one month. Thos. Wilsonv. Dam1. Donnghey. Claim, £3 7s 6d, goods. Mr Thome for plaintiff. The defendant, who had been ill, promised^ to pay 2s Gd per week, which plaintiff accepted ; costs, Bs. . Joseph Warren v.jAlfred Saycro. Claim, £1 8s Gd. Mr Thome for plaintiff. This was a claim for groceries, on which defendant paid 15s, promising to pay tho balance in a fortnight. F. He win and B«ro. v. Ivellan. Claim, £13 7s. Mr Armstrong stated the circumstances of defendant, whose? debts amounted to about £200, and he had agreed with his creditors, per settlement, but had left plaintiff' out in the cold. Frederick He win. deposed that defendant had made offers of settlement, but did not shew any inclination to liquidate the debt. Defendant, moreover, was in the habit of taMnglife easy; he was inthehabitof taking an ainng with his wife and family in Mr Quick's buggy, " and frequently went to the Theatre. These were pleasures which, he could not afford, and he thought defendant ought first to pay for his tea and sugar. Defendant denied paying for the luxuries ; they were gratuitous. Mr Armstrong went into the box, and produced the agreement between defendant and his creditors. Mr Hewin believed that many of the amounts set down in that document were fictitious ; he instanced especially £40 set down as due to Mr Neumegan. His Worship said that it had not been shewn that defendant had the means of paying at present, and he could make no order.

DEFENDED CASES. ' Messrs lielaud v. John Edwards. Claim, £3 10s 7d. Mr Thorne for plain

tiffs. Mr Hesketli for defendant. Barton Ireland, of the firm of Ireland Bros., deposed that in December lie purchased wool of Mr Edwards; one bale marked JC 325, at 9£d. He paid him £3 10s 7d, but subsequently found that a mistake had been made in respect to the ownership of the wool, and that Mr Chisholm, of Wanganui, was the owner. —Mr Hesketh said that if there had been a mistake, Mr Edwards, when convinced, would be happy to rectify ifc. —Mr Barton said the bale was distinctly marked C., and Mr Edwards, he thought, must have seen it. It was evidently a clerical error in placing the C. bale to the credit of Mr Edwards. —Frederick Stophenson, clerk to Messrs Ireland, stated that he entered particulars of wool as they were called out to him by the carter. There was evidently a discrepancy between the entry in the waste book and. that on the credit note.—Robert Crosbie, the carter, deposed to bringing the wool from the steamer Argyle. Some of the bales were marked C., and others J.E., but as it was in December, 1876, his recollection was not quite clear as to minute particulars.—Mr Hesketh addressed the Court, and thought ifc was unnecessary to call defendant, as he really had nothing to answer.—Mr Thome said he would take a nonsuit.—Costs £12 0s 6d, including witnesses' expenses from Wangarei. Finlaysonv. Clifford. Claim, £10. Mr Armstrong for plaintiff. This was a claim for £10, alleged to have been promised by defendant on the completion of the sale of the "Mirror of the World." Plaintiff deposed that he found a purchaser in Mr Graham, who paid £10 depo.-it. The purchase was not completed through Mr Clifford's own mistake in the negotiations, but that was not his (plaintiff's) fault. Mr Clifford said that the proposed purchaser was unable to raise the money, £350 ; and told him to keep the deposit for his trouble and loss of time. Had the sale been effected, he would have given plaintiff the £10. A young man in defendant's employ corroborated defendant's statement. Judgment for defendant with costs.

This was ail the business