S.M. COURT.-YESTERDAY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVII, Issue 107, 8 May 1896, Page 5

S.M. COURT.-YESTERDAY.

(Before Mr H. W. Norbhcroft, S.M.)

I\. McMillan v. J. Gilmore, claim £3 12a lOd for rent.—The defendant denied his liability, but after hearing the evidence Hia Worship gave judgment for plaintiff wibh costs.

C. W. Hassett v. J. MacPherson.— Claim sa, in lieu of one week's notice.— Plaintiff was nonsuited.

C. Philups v. B. Maxwell, claim for a diamond ring or its value £15. — Dr. Laiahleyappeared for plaintiffandMrßaume for defendanb.—Charlotte M. Phillips, plaintiff, deposed thab the ring was presented to her six years ago when she was barmaid ab bhe Pier Hotel. Two years later hor initials were engraved on the inside, bub shortly afterwards bhe box in which the ring waß kepb was broken into and the ring stolen. A few months ago, after she wenb to work ab the Metropolitan Hotel, she saw the ring in the possession of the defendant, who was also employed there. She a9ked defendanb for it, but defendanb replied «jhe could not pive it up, as ib was only given to her to mind. On another occasion, ahe said it had been given her. — Evidence was given by Howard S. Barter and Detective Chrystal.— Mr Baume aaid he would nob take up tho time of bhe Court longer if the Bench were satisfied the ring belonged to Mies Phillips. He did nob, however, want any reflecbion cast on his client, who had only thought thab Miss Phillips Bhould prove the ring to be hers. — Dr. Laishley said they were satisfied thab defendanb became possessed ot ib properly.— There was no reflection cast on ber in the slightest.—Bis Worship said be thought chere was no doubt as to the identity of the ring, bub he could quite understand that in bhe case of a valuable ring like thab, defendant should wish the plaintiff to prove it was hers.—The ring was then handed over to plaintiff, who was allowed costs.