DISTRICT COURT.-This day.

Auckland Star, Volume XV, Issue 3762, 31 August 1882, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.-This day.

(Before Ilig Honor Judge Macdonald.) JULGMSNTB FOR PLAINTIFFS. Mlohaol Whita v. S. Gleeson. claim £1 4a Sd, I soods. oostß £1 2a 6d (Mr Speed for plalnllfi): D. G-'ldlo v. «. Hunter, iB3 Is 7d, timber, oosts fit 153 6d (Mr Thome £or;platnt'il!); Brown, Barrett andCo,v.R.Goorge,fi2lGs4d sooda, ooats£llGs Gd (Mr Thorno for plaintiff); Graves Aiokin V. J. Sleoman, £20 7a, oosta £i Hi (Mr Theo. • Ooonar for plaintiff); ttobert book v. J. Mills, C 2.169 7a\ goods. oontß £115s 6d (Mr B, Cooper , for plaintiff'; Upton and Co. v. J. T damp t& lU 6d, balanoe of promissory note, oosts £3 Is (MrTheo.Oooperf»rplamttff>, MrUorrle proved; W. and G. Winntone t, J. X. Camp, 61 Is 7d, oosts, £1 3s 6d (Mr Thoo. Cooper for plaintiff IJ Hendry and Wnltloy v. V. Haullnun, £i 124. ooats £1 2i 01 (Sir Urowalnii toe pl»ktiff): J. ' fbiUip* V. J. Coillaa, £2155, goads, oosts 13a, '.. JDDGMKNT BITMSIONH OASKS. , ClO9e Bros, v. J. G. Berry, olalm £8 Is pa ]' (no ylf ) —Mr Thoo. Cooper appeared la thlß oase ' (or Mr Heskech. and seated thit a letter bad. ■ been Bour. to the judgment debtor, woo had tube* no notloo; no would therefore ask the Court to make an order tor payment—Ordered 1" to pay £8 Is 9d and £ l lls costs by October 14, or .? J take 11 day •' iniptißonmont. ADJOUHNKD CASKS. Watson v. MoGee, olalm £13 Is; Nenmesfln i v. l.amsrien, £12 18*; Baokland y. Anderson, £3 U» 6d; Kao v. iloCornilofc, £10 10s • l^vy T. Martin, £1 163 6d; Kewln v. Martin, £0 161! ' Mcnoa y. Btoventon, £2 iSg. ' . - DEPSNDW) OASES. JolinMoMabon v. Wm Lee; olalm for 63— ' Mr Goorße for plaintiff. Mr Leo opposed. This was a olatm for hire of horto.—Plaintiff deposed to tuu contract.—Hia Worsntp: Where Is Mr bee, thsdofondant— Mrs Loo s&idhpr hasbiind was bway on biifllaeßa.aidatisreproao'jtcahlm. She hi ort >he korsi>, bat It was too 111 to do the work reqntred; It cost her £2 to fefld the hor«e and get hlai into oondit<nn. Abo seat the hone baolc as hopolosß.—tils Worship said dsfendaDt' nhould hitvo apwared.—PlAtntlff: What was %• the tnattor with cho horss? Bhe was right enough when you «ut her, and when Bhe oame b<iok yoa could road th» rr^n thronßh her ribs. —Mrß lioe: t'hl she wm Btarnng when Bho • cania to ua.- Judgment for plalntitt, ooßts 61 2s 6d. i J. Sontt6r v. J. Johnsoa; claim iBUOs.—Mr - Tyler,fords£endant.oontenledthatpl,lntlffhad ; not famished a oi)l ot partieuiaif, - P'alutlil said ho was Btandlnu In Sale - Btreet. and * defoadDnt's animal, a lively one, klokad ontend broke the ehufc of his carr. These were the simple facts fc'ortunateiy his leg was missed, or his BUtteriußa would haye been Rreat.—Mr Tyler Bald thn oauso of sotion was not dla- -'-*': olosui. - His Worship saM plaintiff should have famished parilf ul*ra, still It aaemed a pity to a"journ so trlflins a oiso. — Halniiff: Ibat means, I Bupposf!, ihat 1 mart employ a lawyer : ' toame'd—Mr Tylor: 'fMat's a wise deolsion,. ' inn which nT lawyor wi'l dispute.—HlS WO'r * «hty anieaded. particulars la ado focm and adjuornut the oi^e for a woetr. - Wm, Ktrbj v. Joha Mullally; olaim £1 lOd 6. —Mr L'O'tor appotirnd In tnia oaso and oxsmlneil aeiennanc na to jiib moaDs.—Defendant aiid no had nons.-Mc Outier: Have you not oomlnK from tbo Aacfc'and City Ooanoli more than filOO on a O3Qti'4ct?—tiefoudant: Itisallmort- , «igor>. Got nothing comlnß to rai»,—Mr CoKei1 BMd if Muilftlly would give him an order for the , umoant claimed on the Connoll ho would at* : fci a" J dJ°arQmßnr.-Mu! laliy: Can't do anything of the Borr.-urderea to pay the whole In MSSItMem the m<l Ot °OtObari°rten iM' . Mt Skerry v. John Mullally; olalm fill llfl.M^ reenw 3 a >'»or Plaintiff; Mr Keetley fordeI fend.ant.—Plaintiff Bald hie olalm was for work done at MulUliyß request, but he oould get vO moaey.-W, q. Qarrard sud others (jave evlaenoe—Judßmentfor plaintiff, £86s 91; oostß, «1 li'l ' ..w;,M9t«od v. Hendrr and Greenleat: claim fo-Mt Lnsk for plaintiff; Mr Browning fordc i fendant.—This was a olaim of £5 being 5 per '■'--■ oont. commießloi» on £tCO raised through Mr -. Oltphant solicitor, on tbo pohooner Helen. Mr . Hendrj's evidence proved that he was cot pecuniarily inoro3tod, but was willing to a'slst i Gresnleaf. and promised to be responbible to £50; ho was not a partner in the matter.-A nonsuit was entered, and Greenleaf. whs was at sea, to ba'hela rosdonsible. e^S°? U9" er v« Hobort Giles; olalm £10 Ma Q*£Z£¥f meft ris£F G«"«o 'or plalntlfl.-; • IjS!l?nent *or platotlfl. Coats &i Bs. ThlawaaßrthetnelnoßS, >|4