DISTRICT COURT.-This Day.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVI, Issue 5466, 26 January 1885, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.-This Day.

(Haforo H. G. Seth Smith, Esq., District Judge.) UNDEFEN'DKD CASK. J. BIM.INGTON AND SON V. JOHN BUOWN'.— Claim £45 .'ln, for Krocorics supnliod.—Mr Ucalo appeared (or the plafntifft, wi.ilo the defendant was not. present.—Tho claim was proved by Mr J. Hililnßton, and judgiucut given accordii'K'J'i With SSI Us costs. ADJOUIINKD. John Dnuno v. T. W. Hiokeon, claim £108 IBs; I'hos. 11. Mabln v. Franz Schorlf, £100. DEFENDED CASKS. Time. Evans v. SAMUKL Youno.-Claim £30, (laiiiuKvi) for loi-h ot a lioiao.-■ -Mr E. Cooper appeared for tho pluintiir, and Mr A. K. Whitakcr forjtho dofomlant.— Mr Coopor o.\[ iulnod that the caso was associated with Bomo peculiarities. The defendant was a livory stable koeiior, and ha lilted a h"ißu from ths plaintiff, which he ehor U afrnvurds lost. Subsequently, how uvor, to tho iSßiio o( tho miininimij in the present action, tho plaintiff found that, bis "oiso had been returned to htm by defendant, Tho claim, therefore, in respect of tho hoi-no was natlslled ; but, as th>o- eh defendant's neiflect or misconduct, plaintiff had bein put to loijal cos's, he now Bought to rocovor thorn. lie submitted that this bo was ontitled to do, as ho had acausoof actl id whon tho summons was issued.—His Honor remarked that the costs usually dtpended upon tho judgment, but no .iudsment was rcqu red in this o»sn. —Mr VVhitakor rontinded that his learned friend had debarred hlmsolf from claiming costs. If ho had only claimed Is for tho dotation of tho horde, it would have carried costß wl h it, buti 8 ho hid not dono so, and his act claim had been satisfied by tho return of tho horso. nothing more could bo flxpectod.—His Honor did not «co howhecoi ldmak«flnordcrforccs'B ,ioe nfjthat thorowasnownc claim.and tliathe know nothing of tho facts —Mr Cooper then announced hia dotermination to procofd with tho caso and adduce evidence This being: bo. Mr Whitakor cskei and obtained..ti 1 the O.h proximo, an adjournment, for tho purpose of llling a doftnec.

Tnos. A. Ashton v. J. 0. MacCohmick ; claim, £20 Is 81, onapromisaory note—The cfondant nskod for a further adjournment oi the case. Mr Bealo objected sirongly, and His Honor, remarking that tho defendant had &!• ready onjpyed every latitudo possible in cases of this kind, gave judgment for the amount claimed, with £5 Is costs.

11. H. Lusk v. Frank Brodie ; claim. £31 Is Bd, f• J r professional services rendored.—Mr W. J. Napier appeared for tho plaintiff, and tho defendant in the absence of Mr F. Eirl, conducted his own case.—Tho plaintiff deposed that ftt the end of 852 defend ant held his P.N. for £200 When i- fell dv". he explained that he had not funds whcicwith to moot it, hut that ia liquidation of the debt he was nrc pared togivo a mortgage for £250 that hi (hold over somo property at Takapu it, pointing out as ho did so, however, that somo question had nrUcu with respect to v prior unrejittered mortgage. The defendant accepted his offer, took over his assignment of tho mortgage, and handed back the P.N. Defendant did say that if lie recovered tho £250 he would pay back the surplus over £200, but witness made no condition about this. Subsequently at witness's advice defendant authorised him to get the Takapuna proporty put up for sole through the Registrar of the Supremo Court. The Uegistrar gave his approval, and tho property was offered for sale by auotion by Mr Greenwood. Through a mist iU o it waa knocked down to a man who paid no deposit. It turned out. subsequently that this person was aeent for the owner of tho prior unregistered mortgage, and that the non-payment of tho depoßlt was purposely done. Witness advised defendant that the auctioneer should be instructed to Bue for the deposit which had not been paid, and in that event offered to conduct the case gratuitously, as defendant demurred to contracting any further expense. The auctioneer having been guaranteed against any expense, brougnt t» c ca3P, and plaintiff conducted it. That was the oiily work hi: bad ugieecl to '.10. gratuitously for defendant.

(Left sitting.)