RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.—This day.

Auckland Star, Volume XII, Issue 3338, 7 April 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.—This day.

{Before E. C. Baistow, Esq., R.M.)

JUDGMENTS FOR PLAINTIFFS,

Trustees ofj Lewis Brothers v. Peter Woods, claim £5 16s, goods. —Mr A. G. Fraser proved the [claim ; William Pemberton v. William A. Wiggins, claim £11 10a goods. John Young v. George Craw, claim 10a BJd, goods. — Mr Smith apueared for plaintiff. John Ryan v. John Harkine, claim £24 yd, goods sold and delivered, and labour done.—Mr Keetley for plaintiff.

Charles Veith v. John Flaherty, claim £3 7s 6d, goods aud board. Charles Veith v. Otto Mooch, claim £4 14s, board and lodging.—'lhe sum of £1 was deducted for work done.

Charles Veith v. William Martin, £9 Is 4s, goods supplied. .Tames Dempsey v. Donald Mclnnes, claim £34 5s sd, ieut.—Mr Theo Cooper for plaintiff. Harry MaaeEcld v. Josiah Baker, claim £32 15s Id, goods sold and delivered.—Mr Laiahley for plaintiff.—The debt was proved by William Doyle.-Coats £4175. Alfred Carter v. John Simons, claim £8 39 6d.—Mr Jas Russell for plaintiff.—lt was stated by plaintiff that £5 had been paid, and judgment was given for £3 3s 6d. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Daniel Murray v. John Mullally, claim £0 16s.—Mr S. Hesketh appeared for the judgment creditor, and stated that £6 had been paid. He would ask that an order be made for the remainder. Order madefor 16s, and 10s costs. Kicbard Maginn v. Francis McCormick, claim £12 18s. Mr Armstrong for plaintiff stated that 30s had been paid. He would ask for an order. The usual order was issued for £11 Ss, and 20s costs, to be paid in weekly instalments of 10 eacli.s ADJOUBNED CASES. Mayor and Councillors v. George Daniel Beveu, contributor, £140 8s 7d,— Adjourned for a fortnight. 11. L, Posseueskieliv. James S. Darrach, claim £13 13 2d, promissory note.—Adjourned till nest Court day. Archibald li. Leslie v. Edward Boyle, claim £4111s lOd, money and interest.— Adjourned till next Court day. William Joseph Napier y. F. O. Cailliau, H. S. T. Peltaer, and Albin Villeva), claim £32 Is, balance of account.—Adjourned till next Court day. Holland and Butler v. Thomas Willis, claim £7 16s 4d, judgement summons.—On the application of Mr Theo. Cooper, adjourned till June 2d. H. L. Possoneskie v. Edward', Shepperd, claim £7 4s, judgment summons. Adjourned fora month, on the application oi Mr Theo. Cooper. George Henry Clarke v. Thomas Armstrong, claim £1 4s 6d. Mr E. Cooper appeared for an adjournment for a month. His Worship referred to the number of adcournincnts applied for, and stated his opinion that iv most instances it arose from the inability of the prosecution to prove that defendant had means. Adjournment allowed. Dunningham and King v. John Wylie; claim £4 2s 6d, judgment summons.—Mr Armstrong applied for au adjournment for a month, which was granted. Dunningham and King v. Samuel Glover; claim £2 10s 6d, judement summons.—Adjourned till/sth .May.—Dunningham and If ing v. Gustav Davis j a claim, £3 12s 6d, judgment summon adjoure.l till 6th May. His Worship said.if the defendants in tho foregoing cases didnot appear on May sth he would make orders against them. Henry Hoag v. Thomas Mackattic; claim £38 13s sd.—Adjourned till May sth, en the application of Mr Jas. Russell. Somerfield and Leek v. George McAnally claim £16 10s, judgment summons.— Un the application of Mr E. W. Burton, the case was adjourned till May sth. WITHDRAWN. Ryan, Bell and Co. v. William Rose, claim £50, goods. Mr Colemau stated that lie appeared for the Plaiutiffs and defendant, aud would withdraw the ca6e. The defendant was at Raratocga, and the plaintiffs had assigned their estate. John Smyth v. Henry Hanley, claim £9 14s, judgment summons,