RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Friday, June 17. [Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., R.M.]

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXVI, Issue 4001, 18 June 1870, Page 6

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Friday, June 17. [Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., R.M.]

New Zealand GoLDMtsiKO Company v. George J. Rooke.— This case had been heard last week, and the Court now gave judgment for plaintiff.

Adjourned till next Court-Day. — The following were adjourned by request of plaintiffs concerned : — Superintendent v. Thomas Thwaites, bond, £12 15s>. ; Golden Crown Extended GoldininingCompany v. T. Shove, £3 15s. ; same v. William Melton, calls, £2 5s. ; same v. A. Linabury, calls, £2 5s. ; same v. Marian E. Davis, calls, £4 10s. ; Imperial Goldmining Company v. Morton Jonea, calls, £17 8s. ; same v. Hussey Vivian, calls, £1 5s. ; Joseph Kerridge v. Charles Grey, wages, £7 ; W. Baeon v. William Jonea balance of account,— fc8 6s. (adjourned for amendment of pardcu-^ lars) ; WJUiam Wftlslt v, Joseph Kerridge, damages, £1 13s. v °

JUDGMENTS FOR PLAINTIFFS. — William Brown v. E. P. Donnelly, subscription to paper, £5 2s. Gd. ; same v. Victoria Goldminmg Company, aceouut, £6 10c, ; H, H, Lusk v. J, MacCTcrmick, IOU, £2 ; B, Wei? y. John Johnston, goods, £ 2 4a. ; New Zealand C4oldmining Company v. George W. VVilliams, calls, £7 10a.; New Zealand (xoldmining Company v. John Martin, calls,

I\ ANJ> S, MORUTlf V. W, Sher\VIN.t« Clami for damages, £18. -Mr. James Busse.ll for plaintiff; Mr. Weston for defendant.— Defendant is master of tha barque 'Ismay,' from Liverpool ; and plaintiffs sued for damages done to three pairs of bellows, part of cargo consigned to them. — The defence was a (JeniaJ of everything.— Several \rft» ne 3 ges were examined for and {u.ftins$,_« Nonsuited.

Band of Hope Goldminixg Company v. J. S. MACFARtANB.— Claim, £13 10s., calls. — Mr. H. H. Lusk for the company. Mr. Heskefcli defended, and urged, as defence, that his client was not a shareholder, calls not properly made, &c— Counsel for plaintiffs called defendant, who admitted that he had bought a promoter's share, but stated that when the cpinpany was formed, and the first call made, He (after making inquiries) refused to hxve anything to do with the oompany, and up to the present time has paid no calls. — A long argument then ensued, Mr. Hesketh contending that no obligation lay upon Mr. Macfarlane, by being the holder of a. promoter's sgrip, |o talfe up t^o Borjp. of the company when fqrmed ; and that, until ting was done, Mr. Macfarlane was not a share, holder. — Mr. Lusk replied at great length. The Court will give judgu ent next sitting.

S. Levi v. W. Dvson.— Claim, £1 2a., work and material supplied. The question in dispute r ag a pape of gjass, —Nonsuited, The Cflurt cps^%t q'ploefe