R.M. COURT.-THIS DAY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXII, Issue 239, 8 October 1891, Page 12

R.M. COURT.-THIS DAY.

(Before Dr. J. Giles, R.M., and Mr E. F,

Tizard, J.P.)

undefended cases.

In the following' cases judgments wenb for plaintiffs by default :—R. and W, Hellaby v. CharlesDunster, £3 19s 3d, and costs, 17s6d; Henry Munro v. Alfred Setford, £1 10s 9d, and costs, 7s ; R. and W. Hellaby v. George Cook, £3 13s 9d, and costs, 17s Gd ; Robert Revv v. Charles Robson, £1, and costs, 6s ; Gibbons and Co. v. John Farrell, £S 5s 3d, and costs, 345; J. Trenwitb. v. R. M. Smith, £4 2s 9d, and costs, 33s 6d ; Closo Bros. v. Charles Alexander Martin, £7 9s 3d and costs, 32s ; Boylan, Tantield, and Co. v. R. M. Smith, £3 163 6d, and costs 23s 6d ; Close Bros. v. Edwin Harrison, £2 13 lOd, and costs 23s 6d, defended cases. One Tree Hill Road Board v. Cochrane.—This was a case beard at a previous sitting of the Courb. The defendant is Chairman of the Board of Trustees having tho management ot a reserve for a gravel pib or quarry for the Road Boards of Epsom, Mount Eden, One Tree Hill and Eden Terrace Road Districts respectively, and for tha borough of Newmarket. The plaintiffs applied for gravel from the said pit, which the trustees refused to allow except upon payment of Is per load. The plaintiff Board protested againsb tho charge, and paid for gravel under protest amounting to £6. They now sued to recover that sum, contending thab the trustees had no right, under the Epsom and Mounb Eden Reserve Act, 1890, to make such a charge.—His Worship upheld tbe contention of the plaintiffs, holding that the charge had been wrongfully made, and gave judgment for defendant with costs. He regarded the point of issue of considerable importance, however, and said it was desirable to have the question settled by the Courb of Appeal."—Mr Devore appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Alexander for tho defendant. Frederick F. Porter v. John Steele. —Claim £8 12s 3d, for eoods supplied. This was a somewhat peculiar case, in which the plaintiff wished to sue for goods alleged to have been supplied to the defendant by a firm of which he (the plaintiff) was formerly a member, and which firm, he alleged, had made this debt over to him in consideration of payment to the firm by himself of the full amount in cash. —His Worship ruled that as there was no proof of agreement between the plaintiff and defendant, tho plaintiff could not sue apart from the firm.—A nonsuit was, therefore, entered, and costs allowed to bhe defendant. G. Woreallv. James Coyle.—Claim 17s. This was a claim for 8. weeks' rent duo for a cottage at Epsom, rented from the plaintiff at 3s per week.—The defendant pleaded thab the water supply was inadequate, and thab she had paid 2s instead of 3s per week because she had to get water from tho neighbours.—His Worship held this co be no defence, and ordered payment of the amount claimed, with 6s costs.

Johanna O'Connell v. Mary Ann Toomey. Claim £19 for alleged detention of goods.—Mr E. Cooper appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr J. M.Alexander for the defendant. Mr Cooper stated that the plaintiff, Mrs O'Connell, in 18S8 was staying at the defendant's house. Mrs O Connell had the misfortune to get into trouble through a firo, and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Sho left in Mrs Toomey's charge a large box containing a great number of articles, including bhose now sued for. Mrs O'Connell mado more than one demand for the articles, and Mrs Toomey denied that the box had been touched while it was in hor charge, and claimed to have pub it in the hands of the police exactly as it was lefb by tho plaintiff.—Evidence having beon heard, His Worship said tho plain tilt' had failed to prove hor case and entered a non-suit with costfa 30s.

Application was made to the Government by the Secretary of bho Eight Hour Demonstration Committee, for the use of tho grounds known as the Metropolitan (at rear of Government House). A telegram has been received from tho Premier, to the otleou that Ilia Excellency bus grunted the request.