R.M. COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 234, 4 October 1888, Page 8

R.M. COURT.

(Before Mr H. G. Sefch Smith, R.M.) Undefended Cases. — Judgment was given for bhe plaintiff in bhe following undefended cases :— M. Gallagher v. P. F. Daniells, claim £13 Us 9d, cosfcs £2 2s; Reid & Gray v.W. P. Bluebb, £6 12s, cosbs £1 P2s; L. D. Nathan and Co., v.' E. Rear, £42 18s sd, costs' *:3 13s; Hancock and Co. v. R. Dowell, £3, costs, 18s 6d; D. Garriock v. A. E. Pobbs, £4 2s, costs 17s 6d; A. Laybourn v. M. B. Roubly, £27 Us 2d, cosbs £3 15s ; A. Laybourn v.-H. Cooper, £11 7s, cosbs £2; W. Mason v. N. Toomey, £36 13s 9d, costs, £4; E. Hare v. W. J. Wilson, £2 ss, Co3bs 17s 6d ; D. Clark v. R. E. Campbell, £7 4s, cosbs £1 15s; A. Wright v. G. S. T. Armstrong, £10 3s, costs £2 Is .G. Knight v. Gray, £18 Is 2d, costs £2 Is,; Sarah Christie. v. E. Brunmor, 17s, costs 6s; George Bailey v. C. J. Park, £3 7s, cosfcs 16s; A. Jowitfc v. J. McNeill, £6 17s 6d, costs £112s. DEFENDED CASE Geokge Bailey v. W. Clarke. —-This was a claim for £12 5s 6dfor beer supplied.—Mr W. F. Buckland appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Madden for the defendant. After hearing evidence judgment was given for tho defendant with 10s 6d costs. A. T. Stanley v.J. J. Parker.—Claim .£8 for money lenb. Mr Napier appeared for the pjaititns und Mv Cotter foj. tho d?^n-

dant. The plaintiff, Albert Stanley, deposed that ne had been lodging with tho defendant in Manchester-street. Defendant asked him for some money one Tuesday to pay for certain drainage work on his property. On the following Friday witness gave, him £8 in notes, which had nob been returned. When the loan was given defendant's wife was present. — Cross - examined : Witness had been boarding with defendant for about four years. He did nob know thafc he was the cause of any difference between defendant and his wife. He declined to state where he was living now. He knew where Mrs Parker was living, buthewould notsfcabe whether he was living in the same house. Still declining fco answer questions, His Worship had fco caution bhe witness, informing him that he would have to answer questions when he said that he was living in the same house wifch Mrs Parker,, bub not as man and wife. He had been there a week. He did nofc know the name of the street where she was now living. He was the only lodger with Mrs Parker. Witness did nofc know thafc Parker and his wife had had words about him, nor was he aware thafc he had been the cause of any difference between them. At an auction of Parker's furniture, he, the witness, had boughb the piano aud took ib to the house of Mrs Parker. He paid Mrs Parker £1 a week for lodging. Parker promised fco pay fche £8, bub failed to do so. Witness did nob think that any impropriety had taken place between him and Airs Parker.- Defendant's wife had carried on a business, for which witness found the money bo pay for the goods. — Mrs Parker, defendants wife, deposed that she heard defendant ask plaintiff bo pay the £8. She saw the money lent. This witness was oross-examined at some lengbh and said she could not say what was the uame of the street where she had lived or was now living and she had to hide from her husband because of his cruelty. Stanley bought a piano and took it to a house which he had taken. The cause of her separation from her husband was not Mr Stanley bub her husband's cruelty. 'J. J. Parker, the defendant, gave evidence and stated positively that he had not received any money from the plaintiff and he was examined at considerable length. He denied the assertion of cruelty to his wife and said the case was a conspiracy against him. After the Counsel had addressed the Court, His Honor gave judgment for the defendant, stating fchab the evidence was of a very peculiar and conflicting character; costs £1 lis.