iIA6ISTKATE’3 COURT. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., S.M.) Judgment was given for the plaintiffs hy default, with costs, in the following cases : Holdsworth, MTheraon, and Co. (Mr Callaway) v. William Morton (St. Andrews), claim £2l 9i CJ, on a promissory note ; J. W. Holley (Mr White) v. T. Cotton (Ashburton), claim £7 19i, for goods supplied ; Lane and Co. (Mr Calvin) v. John Robertson (Gore), claim £7 13j 81, for goods supplied ; Butterworth Bros. (Mr D. Cooke) v. Charles White (Nelson), claim £l3 4s 64, for-goods supplied (judgment for £4 14s 6 J). Dunedin Timber and Hardware Comptnv (judgment creditor) v. Frank Gillan (judgment debtor) and Elizabeth Richmond (subdebtor).—Mr Gallaway (on behalf of Mr Sim) moved that all sums owing or accruing from the sub-debtor to the judgment debtor be attached to answer, the judgment debt. —The order was made, with costs.; Sarah M'Eldowney v. John Francis Robertson.—Claim, £ll ss, for board and lodging.—Mr Gallaway appeared for plaintiff, and after evidence judgment was given for £lO 10s 6d and costs. Riley Brothers v. Thomas Stevenson (carrying on business as the New Zealand Engineering and Electrical Company).— Claim, £27, for coals supplied. Mr Fraser appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr Woodhouse for defendant.—The case was partly heard and then adjourned till Wednesday. CITY POLICE COURT. (Before Messrs G. P. Farquhar, W. Farley, and W. Dickson, justices.) Drunkenness.—Two first offenders were Convicted and discharged ; and a third, who (lid not appear, was fined ss. Maintenance. George Hamillon was Charged with failing to provide hia wife vyith adequate means of support.—Mr Mouat appeared for the defence, and asked for a remand till Thursday and a reduction in the amount of bail, which had been fixed by the Auckland Court at £loo.—Mr MacGregor, for the prosecution, strongly objected to the reduction in the amount of bail, saying that events had shown that the defendant had been desirous of disappearing, and that they }iad had considerable trouble in effecting his arrest after the warrant had been out for a jponth.—Mr Mouat contended that this was pot so, and that it was merely on account of the inconvenience to his client in having £IOO tied up till the case should be heard. He thought £SO would be ample.—The Bench finally decided to fix the amount at £SO, with two other sureties of £25 each, or one of £SO.
Permanent link to this item
THE COURTS—TO-DAY., Evening Star, Issue 10465, 8 November 1897