RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.—Thursday. (Before T. Beckham, Esq. R. M)

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXVI, Issue 3892, 11 February 1870, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT .— Thursday. (Before T. Beckham, EEg.s q. R. M )

UNDEFENDED C YSES. JuiHiMKNT i'OR Piatntiff-!.— Pavhngtoji \- Thrnnburiip, £12 145., goods sold and deluded- NontJt Bntisli Goldininni^ Company v Moms, -£9 75., calls; Ci incksliank, BmaiL ami Co v. King, £14 165., goods; Smith v. Johnson, £20; .Scott v. Scinllo. £1 11s. 4d., goods; Lysnar v. Downey, £7 Us. Gd. ; Hampton v.' Morley, £2 4s. ; Sullivan v. Eager, occupation, £19 ss. ; llobertson v. Watts, £3 103. 6d., judgment for plaintiit by consent. Adtourxed Cases. — James v. Courtain, £5, money lent ; Edwards v. Lowrie, £6, wrongful dismissal ; Beveridge v. Tarret, £10 45.. use and occupation. Application for a New Tkial. — Fernandez v. Mays : This was an application for a new trial, on the part of the plaintiff, for whom. Mr. Wynn appeared, and Mr. Richmond appeared for Mr. He&keth on the part of the defendant. Mr. Richmond applied for an adjournment, which was opposed by Mr. Wyim, After some argument, by counsel, it was suggested by Mr. Wynn that t 1 c easiest way to further the case would be, for the plaintiff to make an exparte application to-morrow (Friday), calling on defendants to show cause why a new trial should not be granted. — Defendant's counsel did not oppose the application, and the application was granted, to take place at half-past 10 tomorrow. Defended Cases. — ISToith Island Goldmining Company v. Howard, £2 10s., calls due by defendant to the Company. Mr. Lusk appeared f>>r the company. Mr. MacCormick, for the defendant, objected to the claim of the plaintiffs, on the ground that the company was in reality no company at all ; that the whole construction was faulty, and therefore generally the defendant pleaded not indebted. — For the plaintiff, it was argued that the company was duly formed and registered under the Joint Stock Companies Act, 1860. — For the defendant, Mr. MacCormick demanded the production of the deed of association, and cited numberless instances in support of his argument, — The Bench coincided with the point raised by defendant's counsel, and the case was adjourned till next Court-day, with payment of costs by plaintiffs. Same v. Morrin, i 2 10s.; same v. Roberts, £2 10s., were likewise ordered to stand over. Massey v. Ansenne : Claim £16 15s. This was a case wherein plaintiff claimed the above sum for damages on account of nonI completion of agreement. Mr. Sheehan appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. MacCormick for defendant. It appeared from the evidence that plaintiff was engaged by defendant as engineer to proceed to his mill at Mercury Bay, and through some misunderstanding between the parties respecting working hours the agreement was broken. — After hearing evidence on both sides, the Bench gave a verdict for £8 and costs.