RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. -Friday. [Before T. Beckham, Esq., R.M.] The Court sat for the disposal of small.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXVIII, Issue 4506, 3 February 1872, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. -Friday. [Before T. Beckham, Esq., R.M.] The Court sat for the disposal of small.

debt claims yesterday. There wore 31 unmmonaea returnable, bat a large proportion had been settled out of Court ; in some cases judgments had been confessed. Three summonses had not been returned, and one case was carried to arbitration. Nine of the summonses were defended, some of which were afterwards postponed. Judgment for Plaintiff. — S. Reynolds v. C. W. Hemmana, claim £Q. Allowed with costs. Adjourned. — Schappe and Ansenne v. Thomas Muir, claim £20. Adjourned to Ist March. Defended.— Williamson v. Burnett and Levy, claim £13 19s. 4d. This case had been adjourned from time to time, extending over two months. It had been heard at great length when first called on, and the outlines of the dispute were published in this paper at the time. It resolved itself into a question of evidence whether a case of inferior tobacco placed in bond had been delivered in error for a case of tobacco of a very superior brand. The plaintiff carries on business as a tobacconist in Auckland. On a date previous to this action being brought into Court the plaintiff bought from Mr. Tanks, at auction, apase of tobacco, known as the " Starngnz ' brand, wnicn is a njguiy uiumemuie article, being held in preference over most other descriptions of American tobacco. The particular case, sold by Mr. Tonks was stored in Lewis's bond, and was stated to weigh 2021b. The condition under which the tobacco was sold was that, if it was objected to, notice should be given within three days. The plaintiff paid for the tobacco, procured a transfer, but, instead of raising objections within the three days, he did not do bo for several weeks. When plaintiff went to pay duty, and redeem it from bond, he found that the tobacco was not the "Starlight," but a brand of a very inferior character. The defendants' reply to this was that they were merely agents for Solomon and Myerp, of Syduey, who had consigned the tobacco to them on sale and returns. It was in fact a consignment, and at the time of sale they had- disclosed their principals. The three days allowed to inspect the tobacco was ample time to have ascertained whether the tobacco was what it had been represented.— Judgment was deferred. Elley v. Murant.— Claim, £8 14s. Mr. W. L. Bees and Mr. Kissling appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr. Brookfield and Mr. Alexander for the defence. The plaintiff resides at Parnell, and is a butcher. Miss Murant, the defendant, lives in the same locality, and Mr. Baber at the time of the claim acted as agent for Mrs. and Miss Muraufc. He proved their cheques, one for £4, another for £5, and a third for £9 145., which made up the full amount of the account. Tho receipt of the last-named cheque was denied. There was a name, ft. Elley, endorsed on the back of the cheque, and the plaintiff swore positively that he had never placed his name there ; that he never received the cheque ; and there was none of his family who wrote his name on it. The case was adjourned, Mr. Beckham remarkiug that altogether it was a very extraordinary affair. Mullallyv. R. S. Sandalls.— Claim £9. This was a demand for the value of two pigs, chased by the defendant's dogs. A nonsuit was entered for the plaintiff. C. Pike v. J. L. D'Albidyht.— Claim, £14. Mr. Kusling for the plaintiff, and Mr. W. L. Rees for defendant. This was a claim for goods supplied upon the defendant's order to A. M. Dunn. The bill of particulars was sworn to. An order for articles to the value of £4 15s. was handed in. This sum, it was alleged, was paid. The defence set out was that this was the only order given, and the only one for which the defendant was responsible. Plaintiff was informed of this fast at the time. The evidence was very conflicting, and a nonsuit was entered to allow the case to be brought into Court again, should the plaintiff be in possession of better evidonce.