RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. -THIS DAY.

Auckland Star, Volume XI, Issue 3241, 9 December 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. -THIS DAY.

(Before J. E. Macdonald, Esq., R.M.)

UNDEFENDED cases.

In the following cases judgment went for plaintiffs by default:—J. Cosgrave & Co. v. W. H. Long, £3 14s 8d; E. Porter & Co, v. Wm. Oliver, £39 18s Id; Bright Smile G.M. Co. v.-R. T. Rowley, £5; Bright Smile G.M. Co. v. Daniel Cavanagb, £1; Andrew Eaglesim v. Thomas Dawson, £11 13s 7d; J. G. Parry v. Peter Curnett or ; Kernott,£l 16; George E. Priestly. Frederic . Sherwin, £3 8s; A. Buckland v. John Codling, £5 6s 9d ; Auckland Dairy v. Henry Smith, 9s 8d; same v. John Gardner, £1 6s lid; same v. B. W. Lnqas, 7s 6d; same v. Mrs Brunkard, £1 lOJd; John Buchanan v. John Purcell, £30 on a dishonoured cheque ; Thomas Hayes v. Eliza Cleary, 13s S£d. JUDGMENTS CONFESSED. Seccombe and Son v. George May.— Claim, £12 2s. Sir Michael Seymour v. Margaret Lucy.—Claim, £15 4a. H. B. Morton v. John Bryant.-Claim, £12 17s 6d. Isaac Phillips v. Charles Crowell.— Claim, £2 Bs. judgment summons case. Stephen Sueman v. Thos. Labeine.— Claim £5 12s. Mr Thome appeared for the judgment creditor.—The debtor agreed to pay up at the rate of 5s a week. A month's adjournment jvaa therefore granted. ADJOURNED. Walter Wright v. Robt. Lamb; James McEwen v. Henry Wilson; Ryan, Bell, and Co. v. Wm. Rose; Henry Niccol v. Thos. Williams; H. L. Poasenniakie v. Edward Shepherd; Thomas Brierley v. John Purcell. EEHEAKING. 7IENEY HOAO V. T. M. MACHATTIE.— Claim, £33 12a sd.—The defendant applied for a rehearing of. this case. —Granted on the usual terms. - DEFENDED CASES, Bucklee v. Joseph Fbiedm an.—Claim, £210s, wages.—The plaintiff deposed that he' was engaged at Oamaru by the defendant (the proprietor of the Sightascope) at 30s a week and board and lodging found, with the understanding that a week's notice would be given if any intention to dispense with his service. The agreement was merely a verbal one.— The defendant positively denied that' tho engagement was made with any such condition besides stating that at any rate ho had really given the plaintiff nutice of an intention to discontinue the contract'by advising him to secure work at the Circus. No demand was made for money in lieu of notice until eight days after the plaintiff had left, and if it had been made he (the defendant) would hive been inclined to pay it to avoid coming into Court, Tho plaintiff had prosecuted him because he had declined to pay for some.dtinks for him. It was ttue that he had offered him £1, but that was simply done to avoid litigation.—The plaintiff was nonsuited.

AUCKLAKD DAIKY V. DAHIEL ALLEN.— Claim, 6s Id.—Mrs Allen appeared for her husband, and disputed the claim.—The plaintiffs had not evidence sufficient to establish it, and therefore a nonsuit was recorded.

The Court then rose,