MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVI, Issue 74, 28 March 1895, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THIS DAY.

' (Before Mr H. W. NorbheroftyS.M;) ONBEFENDED CASES. ' Judgment was given for the plaintiff in the following undefended cases :—T. and S. Morrin and Co. v. W. S. Lee, claim £2428 Id'; Henry 0. Nolan, v. W. E. Frosb, riiaim £5 10a (jttdgmenb was given for £2); J, Chambers" and Son v. W k J, "Alexander, claim £8 15* ; L. D. Nathan and Co.: v. Joseph J. Falk, claim £40 ; A. Rykers v. H. Bloxaome, claim £5 sa; W. Gunson and Co. v. Garton Bros., claim £44 103 9d; Joseph Ehrman v. -M. Agnes Blair, claim £28 2s ; Wallisand Caley v. E. S. Cole, claim £114s 9d ; Welby and Miller v, Joseph Mallame, claim £6 7s 9d (judgment; for £3 7a 9dj; Charles Hopkins v. George Sluice, claim £2 15a 7d ; Thomas Prosser v. Robertson and Macpherson, claim £1 ; Francis O'Connor v. John O'Connor, claim £4 6s Bd, defended case. . Mrs Elizabeth Websteb v. Gtjyt Newcombe. —This'was a claim to recover £1 6s lOd, for goods alleged to have been taken from a house belonging to plaintiff, of which defendant had been tho tenant.—Air V. Battley appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Clayton for the defence.—Evidence was given by plaintiff in support) of the claim. She stated that a cupboard and a globe had been removed. In answer to Mr Clayton, she said she knew that Mr Guy Nowcombe was a single man, living with his mother, bub as he took the house she held him responsible for the articles alleged to have been removed. She was sorry that this had occurred, 'as the Newcombe's were very nice people. As their things were packed by men after they left for Wellington she thought perhaps Mr and Mrs Newcomba did not know about the matter, therefore she wrote to them.—Mr Webster and Mr Richard Webster also gave evidence for the plaintiff.—A letter was read from Mrs Nowcombe denying that) anything had been removed which bad nob been placed there by her.—Mr Clayton pointed oub that Mrs Webster had even claimed 'fourpence for the stamps on the , letters she had written to Mrs Newcombe.—Mr Guy Newcombe and lub mother being in Wellington could nob give evidence.— Mr Stanley Newcombe, being called, supported tho statements contained in his mother's letter. He said he removed from the house only what his mother had placed there. His motker was the tenant of the house.—His Worship held that: the facts alleged had nob been proved." Plaintiff was therefore non-suited.—Mr Clayton said Mr Nowcombe would nob ask for coats.

'WitLiAM O'Brien v. John Cox.—This was an action to recover £1 93, alleged to be duo for cab hire.—Mr J. O'Meagher appeared for, the plaintiff, end Mr Jackson Palmer for the defence.—Plaintiff was nonsuited, £2 2s costs being allowed. .