RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.—Yesterday.

Auckland Star, Volume XII, Issue 3521, 18 November 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.—Yesterday.

Before F. M. P. Brcokfleld. Esq, R.M.)

Stbok- v. Williamson ; cls„m,£B. damages. Mr Hudson Williameon for plaintiff, and Mr Tyler for defendant.—This claim was for alleged damage to plaintiff's boat by defendant's cutter Stort. The defence was a denial of the charge. A good deal of evidence on both tides was oflorcd, and finally his Worship considered that plaintiff bad not made out his claim to the satisfaction ot the Court.—Mr Williamson aoceptea a nonsuit. Costs, £3195. Wm. Payne v. Jas. Caapm-N ; claim, SI 8s 2d. Mr Cotter for plaintiff, 'this was an action for goods cold and delivered. Judgment for plain tift.

A.Agnewv. S.Failoon; claim, £12 lis 6d. Plaintiff, a storekeeper, claimed of defendant, a storekeeper of Lucas's ciesk. for goods de ivered. Defendant said he had received the goods, but hod poid for them.-Plaintiff denied that the eoods constituting this claim hod been paid for. The particulars were crudely stated.—Tho case was therefore adjourned for more explicit evidence.

P. Moloughney v. S. Clark ; claim £16133.— Mr Theo. Cooper for p'alotiff, Mr Tyler for the defence.—lt appears from plaintiffs evidence that he advanced to the defendant, a contractor, £28 10s in order to take up a contract from the Mount Kden Highway .Board. The defendant paid back £25, leavinga balance of £310?. Some time after tbe plaintiff lent defendant £13 mora. The plaintiff was also engaged at labouring work en th*s contract. The defence was that this money was put into the contract by the plaintiff as a partner.—The evidence of Messrs Lovers and McKellan was taken, ar.d the further hearing of the case adiournsd.—The Court rose r.t 5.30 p.m.