DISTRICT COURT-This Day.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 3960, 9 April 1883, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT-This Day.

(Before His Honor Judge Smitb.)

BANK OF AUSTRALASIA V. SYKES AHD ANOTHER,—Mr Theo. Cooper appealed for plaintiffs. It appeared tbat only one of the three defendants (Messrs Sykes, Lusk and Burton) had been served, viz, Mr Lusk. Mr Sykes was stated to be absent in the South.—Mr Cooper said he wonld only ask for a judgment against Mr Lusk, at present, and would commence a new action against MrSykes.—Mr Gane deposed that the bank held a promissory note by defendants in favour of Mr Sykes for £50 4s 4d, and judgment was accordingly recorded for plaintiffs. Hodgson v. Waltjjrs.—Mr Brassey appeared for plaintiff, and stated that the case had been settled.

Lkgge *nd Another v. Fkrouson.— Mr S. Jackson stated that the defendant was now going through the bankruptcy Court, and the case was struck out, Porter and Co. v. seager.— This was a judgment summons.—Mr S. Jackson appeared, and stated that he had seen the judgment debtor, who was willing to pay £4 per month.-His Honor said it was necessary that the debtor should be present before he could wake the order, and the case was adjourned till to-morrow morning. Porter and Co. v. MacCormick.— This case was adjourned for a month, on the application of Mr S. Jackson, Albert Walker v. William H. Percival, claim £31 3s 6d, money lent.— Mr S. Jackson appeared for plaintiff who was examined, but^ his evidence was hot sufficiently conclusive to wanaat an order beiug made, An adjournment was therefore granted, at Mr Jackson's request, until next ordinary Court day.

Hulms V. Gkorgh.—This was a claim for goods supplied, - Mr Brassey appeared for plaiutiff, and examined Mr Peacock, collector for plaintiff, regarding the debtor's means.—The witness stated that George had sold his business to Mr Briggs, and that he intended to leave the colony. The case was adjourned till to-morrow, in order that further evidence might be obtained.

Dodd v. Montgomery, -This case was adjourned for a month by consent. bmith v. O'Connor —N otice of discontinuance of suit had been served by the plaintiff, and Mr Theo. Cooper for defendant asked for costs until date of discontinuance.—Mr Jackson appeared fur plaintiff.—The application was granted. McKinnon V. WOOD.—Adjourned for a month by consent of parties, there being a possibility ot settlement;-

KEPSON V. DuNjertcN.—Adjourned for a month on the apulicationof Mr S. Hesketh. MdLVANKY V. PERSEVERANCE G.M.C. —Mr T. Cotter appoaredfor the plaintiffand Mr Tyler for tho defendant.—This case had been partially heard on a previons court day, and MrTjlerwasnowaboutto cross-examine a witness whose cross-examination-in-chiet had already baen made —Mr Cotter asked that notes of the evidence might be read over, but Mr Tyler objected to the witness's evidence being read to him before he was cross-examined. He claimed to be allowed the advantage of the interval.—His Honor held otherwise, and said the best course they could adopt was to take the evidence afresh. He would treat the testimony as if it had not been given.—Mr Tyler objected then io a plaintitl's case being reopened after it was closed. -His Honor held that the plaintiff had a light to continue his examination of tbo witness. There was nothing to show that the case was closed, the moss-examination not having been closed.- Martin Macdonald was then called, and fijr Tyler formally protested against his evidence being taken, on the ground that Mr Cotter had closed his case for the plaintiff, subject to the defendant's crossexamination, on the last court-day. H the witness were examined now, he would decline to take any part in his cross-examina-tion. — Mr Cotter suggested that the evidence should be read over to the witness iv his present sober state, and he should be a'ked "yea" or "nay." His Honor held that the witness' evidence should be taken de novo.—Mr Cotter proceeded to examine tbe vjitness, and Mr Tyler left the Court.— Further evidence was taken, and His Honor pave judgment for tbe amount claimed, \h,, £88 133 4d, aud costs £1C 6s. Jeffs v. OrPENimsiKK.-This action, whiph was brought to recover tho amount of £65 6s lOd said to be due to Charles Kingsford Jeffs by Adolphus Cppenheimer for salary as commercial traveller at £8 per month and part expenses of lecture, commenced before a special jury at & p.m. The jury consisted of Messrs. D. F. Evans. B. J. Esaro, William Fairhead, and F. H. Eyre. Mr Brassey appeared for plaintiff, and Mr James Russell for defendant. Ihe evidence of the plaintiff was vety similar to tbat given in the case, Oppenheimer v. Fenton, heard some weeks ago. Plaintiff claimed salary from April to November, 1882, and also- one-half the expenses of a southern tour, during which he claimed to have'deliyered lectures advertising the' defendant's goods as agreed,

(Left Sitting.)