R.M. COURT.-This Day.

Auckland Star, Volume XXI, Issue 4130, 27 September 1883, Page 2

R.M. COURT.-This Day.

[Before H. G. Scth Smith, Esq., R.M.J UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment was given by default for the plain"

tiffs in tho following cases:—Hancock & Co. v.

Augustus Baffin, £27 ICs; John King v. W. H. Howling, 410 10s; Edward Whito v. A. \V. Burnett, £13 ISs; James Corley v. H.E. SteUr,' I SX 18s (itl; John Leek v. G. W. Friend, *5U2d; S? It. Fowler & Co. v. Mrs Cadman, 13 I3a M; Z'/ Wilson, Harrowuy & Co. v. John Robinson, £28 - Us 9d; R. Arthur v. Elizabeth Addison, £10 169 7d; Geo. Glodhill v. R. J. Glover, 40 6s: James H Johnston v. James McGregor, £20193 8d; Same* 4 v. John Riddoll, & 8s 6d. Adjourned. — Wm. Sloan v. Edward M. i;^ Hunter, «5 10s; Thos. Constable v. Samuel H. ■ m Webb, £12 ; Geo. Duunett v. Earnest Hill, £tt;&9| Garrett Bros. t. H. Jacobs, £10 Is 6d; Jbhn.^ King v. Bridget Nolan, £817s. judgment summons cases. , John Kino v. Hiniora Manga Kahu: •'■■:' Claim, £38 6s 7J.—Payment ordered on orbetora ■ , in default, one month's Imprisonment. . A. E. Glover v. Charles Palmer: Claim,'-V 2Ss.—Order made for payment by weekly tfc . : ; slalmonts of 6a; in default, 6 days' imprison^ J^. Jas. Rae v. J. P. Morgan ; claim, J3U 16s.— - 1 An order was mad j for payment at the rate of,. •■ 7s 6d per weok; 11 days' imprisonment in de- ? DEFENDED CASES. Peter Gilfoyle v. Union Sash asd H Dook Co.; claim, £39 0s 9d.—Mr Theo. Cooper ■ appeared for tho plaintiff, and Mr Button ■ (whitakor and Russell) for the defendant I Tho plaintiff is a bushman, who had been in the I employ of the defendant company BtiE|; Tairua, and at Christinas-time last ;,Sij year lie received from the Company's manager ;:; at Tairua (Mr Ross) an ordor upon the head I office at Auckland for tho payment of £41 9s, I the amount due to him. At the Bametimeho ■ also received an order for £31. While travelling H to Auckland, howorcr, ho lost tho larger order, : B and, as those documents aro not negotiabla ■■■ S without being endorsed, ho at once reported the matter to Mr Murdooh in Auck- I land, whereupon an arrangement was made ■ wheroby ho received £5 in cash, tho balanco to bo payable at tho end of six months. As work was slack when ho roturned to Tairua, he ; offered tho deferred order to Henry Laycock, s the local storekeeper, for £20. Tholattcr wanted. I 1 Ross (tho manager) to sign an authority to ■§ secure the dobt, but as ho would not, the proposal ; : was not accepted. The plaintiff then obtained* loan of therequlsito amount from Laycock by ;; "y giving a noto guaranteeing its repayment at uio end of three months, und subsequently ho tranfr . mitted him money in part payment thereof. ■ *g Tho contention was as to the nature of the transaction between the plaintiff and Laycock,, tho defendant Company not disputing the alleged arrangement for its paymont. Laycock sworo that tho debt was absolutely assigned to I him for tho £20, and that in August last,, (tho six months' grace being up) he received I payment of the £30 from the Company.— JUr Burton moved for a nonsuit, contending that he had proved an equitable assignmont of tho dobt, and that it was Irrevocable. Tho plaintiff's remedy, if he hadany, was against Laycock.—Mr Cooper submitted that thero was nothing on tho faco of the document given to Laycock to shew that it was not rovoeablo. It was simply a document authorising a third person to receive money, and therefore « it was rovoeablo at any time.—His Honor said that he should want to consider the question ol revocability move carefully before expressing an opinion.—Judgment was therefore reserved.