RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. —This Day.

Auckland Star, Volume XI, Issue 3198, 21 October 1880, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. —This Day.

(Before J. K. Mncdonald, Esq., 8.M.) JUDGMENTS VOII PLAINTIFFS, t. Sonieri'icld and Leek v. Charles Poniaire, claim, £10 193 Gd, less £5, costs, £1 19a ; Goorgc Foreman v. 11. Harrison, I's 10s Gd, costs, 143 j N. G. Louuox v. 11. E. Webb, £23 7s lid, floods, co3t3i £2 12s; Somerfield and Leek v. Win. IJuclianan, £5 2a (id, less interest, costs, £2 11s (Mr Lusfc for plaintiff); F.llawin and Brother v. Michael Grace, £4 V.U Bd, groceries, costs, £1 ; Alfred Carter v. Michael Grace, 12s, butcher".-) bill, coats, £1 Gd ; same v. Ileury Keid, £S 5a lid, costs, £1 17s (Mr James Kussell for plaintiff in both casos); Sash and Door Company v. J. Pnrccll, £2 7s Bd, costs, £1 2a Cd (Mr A. K. Whitaker lor the Company); Isaac Phillips v. Joseph Roll, £1 lSs, balance ot account, costs, £1; John Cosgrave v. 11. McClellan, £2 lls, costs, £1 2s Cd (Mr Ji»s Kusscll for plaintiff) j Geo. 11. Clarke v. Jonathan Woods, £2 10*, costs, £1 2s Gd (Mr Ed. Cooper for plaintiff). ADJOURNED. W. C. DemiOJ v. John Austin, claim £4 6a; Isaac Phillips v. Charles Crowcll, £2 8s; John Smith v. Henry Hunlcy, £0 14g; Gee and Potter v. J. Mullally, £7 Km G1; Edwin Carr v. John Sakey, £17 lls Oil ; James Ktevvart v. William llowell, £-?.S lls 3.1; Samuel l.'oombcs v. John Luiidon, £13 13 Gd ; Henry Nieol v. I'howas Williams, £S Is ; It. Reeves v. J. Johnson, £8 11* lOd. DEITKNDiD CASES. MeVab v. Sanders, claim £7 18s 9.l.—Mr Alexander for plaintiff.— This claim was for Roods supplied by plaintiff, a grocer to the defendant, Goorgo X Saudera,— Defendant finally acknowledged tho debt.— Judgment for plaintiff. Costs £'2 !H Allen Brown v. Frank Jaggcr.—Claim, £15 15s.—Mr Tole for plaiutilt, and Mr E. Cooper for defendant,—This was n claim for bush work. —Frank Jogger deposed that he was managing partner iv connection with Messrs Taylor and Danaher. The defendants, for there are several, were employed in tho month of March, when hogaveorders to Urndloy to stop provisions aiiu discharge the meu, ns they tailed to net tho logs out.—To Mr Tolo : Did not stop the provisions uulil their term of engagement had expired.—Allen Brown, plaintiff, gave evidenco as to tun nature of the arrangement, which was to get out 200,000 feet of timber and 100 logs. Mr Jaggor sciiil ho was to do the work and all hands should be paid. Bradley acted for Mr Jagger. Did the work ou the faith of Jagger.—His Worship said he had seen so many of theso cases, whero there were three parties, and where the working section takes orders from tho medium party. Tho 'Unfortunate parties who do the work generally falls to tho Court. It vai no use going on with the case. Ho should like to give the men their wages if possible, but hu hoped Mr Jaugor would sec the men righted. —Mr Tolo said that would bo attended to by his clieut.—Nonsuit ; costs, £2 13s. Mcllroy v. Lathrope.— Claim, £ 1 8s Gd. —Mr Hughes for plaintiff.—Dcfoudr.ut said he had owned to owing 18s, but whon ho called respecting it, Mr Lathropo would not take it, aud ho naturally concluded that tho case was settled.—Thos. Mcllroy, dealer iv coals and lirewood, gave a contra version, and claimed £1 Sa Gd, which was still due and owing —Lawin Lathrope said plaintiff had iusulted him by unseemly lauguage, and ho considered that all was square.— His Worship : That was very rude, bnt it does not absolve* you from tho debt.— Juilgiucut for plaintiff.—Costs, £1 2a Gd. Ccnuop v.| McLennan.—Claim, £5 2s Gd. Mr Thco. Cooper for plaintiff, Mr Tolo for defoudant.—This was a case of disputed account. —Ou the application of Mr Cooper tho case was adjourned for a week for tho purpose of furnishing the Court with amended particulars. Carter v. Mills.—Claim, £11 ISs Sd, butcher's bill.-Mr Jas. Jtuasell for plaintiff, Mr Thorne for defeudant.—Henry Mills, the defendant, residing in Nelson-street, deposed that the meat was supplied by Mr Carter to his wife. Ho was simply a lodger in the house, payiDg her £2 a week rent. His wife was entirely master of the establishment. Ho had nothing to do with the purchase of the beof. He might have ordered occasionally for his wife, but certainly not forhimselt— To Ilia Worship : I pay £2 per week to my wife for board and lodging, partly for her support.— To Mr|Kusstll: Mrs Mills did keep a lodoing-housc iv her own name. She is going through the Court.—Alfred Carter, ■ bntoher of Wellesley-strcct, know Mr and Mrs Mill". Sued Mr Mills, as ho supplied the house frequently by hia orders. When he expressed a doubt iv money matters, Mr Mills promised to sco that his bills were paid. Ceased to supply meat in 1878, but did not sue before.nsboth Mr and Mrs Mills had frccinentlyjasketl thnttcttloment mi s ht bo postponed.—Cross-exauiinad by Mr Thorne. Elizabeth Millsgavecvidence to the effect that she had been very unfortunate inbusinctsduringthe lust year.orshe would have paid Mr Carter. She had instructed her solicitor to put Mr Carter in the schedule.-To Mr Uussell: Her husband had never left her house, although she had a protection order for tho security of her ■own property. —Mr Thorne tendered Mrs Mills' protection order in evidence.— Counsel having addressed the Court, Ins (Worship reserved judgment until next Court day. | This war all tho business.