R.M. COURT.-Yesterday Concluded.

Auckland Star, Volume XX, Issue 4080, 10 August 1883, Page 2

R.M. COURT.-Yesterday Concluded.

(Before Captain Jackson, 8.M.)

DEFENDED CASES,

H, P. Gibbons and Co. t. Bobk&v Taylob. — Claim, £19 5a 7(1.-Mr E> Mahoney for the plaintiffs, and Mr Mao Corruick for the defendant.—Mr Mao Cormick applied for a remand, in order to put in a set-off.—Mr» Mahoney stoutly opposed the application, and complained.; that the matter had been vexationsly put off several times already, although the defendant, who was a Waiheke settler, had been in town since June last. If there was anything to be brought by way oi: »et> off, it could be made the subject of a counter.—His Worship took the same view ; of the matter, and the plaintiffs therefore proved their case and obtained judgment with costs.

Jambs McTndoe & Company v. Ohas; H. HILL.-Claim, £1 5s Bd.— Mr Keetiey for the plaintiffs.—The defendant appeared in person, and based bis defence upon the fact that he had not ordered the good) S for which tbe plaintiffs sought to recoveri It was shewn, however, that his wife haa ordered them, and tbat he was therefore' liable. — A set-off for 8s having beea allowed, judgment* was given for tha balance, viz., 17s Sd, and costs. W. J. McG. ARMSTRONG V. IBBKTSON. Claim £5, commission.—Mr lheo. Cooper appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr B. Mahoney for the defendant.—The plaintiff is a commission agent, and his action was brought to recover commission at the rate of 1 per cent, upon a loan of £500 which, the defendant instructed him to procure for the purchase of a house and property « Onehunga. The plaintiff alleged that n? obtained the promise of the loan from M* Oliphant, and that immediately afterwards the defendant changed hir mind. TUB defendant, on the contraryimaintainedJtnK his instructions were recalled before »M. plaintiff hart taken any action.—The plain* tiff failed to prove his case, and a nonsnlt waß therefore recorded. . G. W. Heslop v. John Fishk.-1. Claim, £8.-Mr MacCormick appeared j« tbe plaintiff, and Mr taishley for tie dafendaut. The claim was brought to re* cover for an engine, counter-made U> w* order of the defendant. The P 181?' 1?? witnessep, however, were unable to 0« present, and an application was m«le»r - c-ijournment.- Mr iaiihley claimed corns for the case. His Wor.hip thought UW application ieasonable, and granted a low night's adjournment on the plaintiff unaer« taking to p^y defendant's costs for w» day. The Court then rose.