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

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXIV, Issue 3355, 17 April 1868, Page 3

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

Judgments for Plaintiffs. — Dr. Lee v. D. McDougall, claim £3 j Hunter and Co. v. W. Lundon, £3 19s. 6d.

Judgment Confessed. — Akera v. Innis, claim £12 S». Sd.j execution not to issue until after next Thursday.

Adjourned Case.— Hayet v. Mullaly : This was an interpleader case, and an application for adjournment until next Thursday was granted plaintiff. Mr. Btookfield (in the absence of Mr. MacCormick) appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Hesketh for defendant.

DEFENDED CASES. Eichabds v. Mttllalt.— Claim, £5. Mr. Hesketh, on behalf of defendant, applied for are-hearing of the case. The application was made on an affidavit by defendant, setting forth that he had not received payment of the money alleged to have been paid. — The plaintiff said he had no objection to the re-hearing of the case. — His Worship said the case would be set down for hearing on Thursday next. He observed that either one or other of the parties would stand in an awkward position, it he could judge from the evidence that had been given.

Munho v. Lane.— Claim, '£5, damages for distress made for rent which had been subsequently abandoned without any reason being assigned. — Mr. Hesketh appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Brookfield for defendant.— The plaintiff deposed that he saw defendaut in possession of a house at Remuera occupied by one of plaintiff's tenants, named Mclndoe. Plaintiff had put him into possession. The reut due was £3 lls., which had not been paid. In cross-examination plaintiff admitted that he had not seen defendant in the house. — Mr. J. Richmond deposed that the distress warrant had been prepared in Mr. Gillies'a office, and that defendant stated that he knew how to execute the warrant. Defendaut took the warrant to execute, and subsequently admitted that he had executed it, and been in possession, but had withdrawn from possession on accouut of illness. Witness told him that he had done wrong, when he said witness could do what he liked. — This closed plaintiff's case. —The defendant deposed that he had been in possession of the premises, and remained there over 36 hours. He receired no food from plaintiff, although he had sent messages to bim three or four times to obtain food. Defendant was very unwell and obliged to leave the house.— Defendant's evidence was corroborated by the testimony of David Mclndoe.— His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for £3 Us.

C. Davis v. J. Jlodgbbs. — CUim, £4 Bs. O^d., tor goods sold at auction. The defence was that defendant did not take delivery of the goods.— Mr. Brookfield appealed for plaintiff.— The plaintiff deposed that defendant became the purchaser of goods at a public auction in March last, to the extent of £4 88. OJd. The goods were to be removed within twenty-four hours after the day of sale. — Herbert Ashton corroborated plaintiff as to the condition on which the goods were sold. If the goods were not removed within the specified time, ib wa3 optional with the auctioneer to sell them at public sale or by privat - contract at the former purchaser's risk, or he bad the option of not selling them at all The defendant deposed that he purchased the goods, but they were not what they had been represented, and he would not clear them. He would abide by the conditions of sale. There was nothing stated in the conditions that plaintiff might not sell the goods again. He would like to have the case adjourned for the production of the conditions of sale. Defendant afterwards consented to submit to judgment, and to take the goods. — Judgment was recorded for plaintiff.

Huntee and Co. v. W. Taylob. — Claim, £3, balance of account for horses sold. — Defendant admitted a debt of £2 2s. 6d.— -Mr. Sheehan appeared for plaintiffs. — One of the plaintiffs deposed that the purchases made by defendant amounted to £8, and he had paid £5 on account. — Defendant said he had paid 17s. 6d. iD addition to the £s.— Judgment was given for plaintiffs.

Haedwick v. Kadford.— Claim, £13 3a. 3d., balance of account. — Mr. Weston appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Beveridge for defendant. — Mr. Beveridge said there was an item of £15- of which particulars had not been given. — It was agreed to adjourn the hearing of the case until that day fortnight. — The Court then rose.