RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. [Before T. Beckham, Esq., R.M.]

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXIII, Issue 3123, 20 July 1867, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. [Before T. Beckham, Esq., R.M.]

HALL V. LEECH. — APPLICATION "FOR BE-HEARING. Mr. Beveridge said he attended to make application to the Court for a new trial in the case of Ball r. Leech, heard at the previous day's sitting. He had only received his instructions in the case on the previous afternoon, and the summons was only returned from Te Awamutu on Wednesday morning, so that if he had been instructed earlier it would hare been impossible to proceed with the case yesterday, owing to the non-appearance of the summons at the requisite time. The summons was taken out on the 18th of June last, but was not served until the 8th of July, so that if it took so long to serve the summons the hearing ought not to have been so hurried. The action, however, was one which ought not to have troubled the Court, but should have been heard at Te Awamutu or Drury. The summons was for arrears of rent due, and the defence was that defendant was not responsible to Hall for the mort£*o e * Mr. James Russell, on behalf of the plaintiff, said that ten days' clear notice was given the defendant in the action, and the mail from Te Awamutu came into town three times a week, so that the argument of want of communication could not lie. The Bench said, if the counsel would make affidavit that there were ■ufficient grounds for * new trial, having a good defence, and would state it, the application would no doubt be entertained. In the meantime, thle application would have the effect of causing a suspension of judgment. Mr. James Russell said he should raise no objection, if Mr. Beveridge thought he had a good defence. He did not fear any defence that might be set up. The Court then rose.