RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. WAIPAWA.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 4086, 9 January 1878, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. WAIPAWA.

Tuesday, January 8. (Before R. Beethain, Esq., R.M.) The Court sat at 11 o'clock. A. W. LASCELLES V. NEIL CAMPBEIX. This was a claim for £5 6s 6d, balance of account for fencing and other work performed by plaintiff. Defendant disputed the account on the ground that the work was not properly done. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with cost 11s. NICHOLAS AND WHITE V. A. W. LASCEIXES. Claim for £4 16s 3d, for goods supplied. Judgment was given for amount claimed, with costs 9s. SAME V. DOUGLAS. Claim for £9 4s 6d, balance of amount due for goods supplied. Judgment was given for amount claimed, with costs of Court 335, and solicitor's fee 21s. SAME V. WEI. Claim for £5 3s, for goods supplied. Judgment for amount claimed, with costs 13s. SAMK V. PECKER. Claim for £6 19s 3d, balance due on an account for goods supplied. There was no appearance of defendant, and judgment wont by default for amount claimed, with costs 13s. ♦ DUNCAN AND CO. V. PERCY. Claim for £32 14s 3d, for goods suppliod. Thoro being no appearance of detomlant, and the debt being proved, judgnumt wont by default for amount claimed, with costs 255. I.AMHRKT V. DUNCAN. OUvim for £33 5s 2d, for supplying fonoing wiro and providing labor, &c. Tho amount was paid into Court on the provioua day. Defendant also paid X'-* O.h ltd for the expenses of plaintiff and wituoasos attending tho Court. UOUUIIKJS V. TII'ENE. This was a claim for £25 7s Gd, being balauoo of account for the erection of a houao, lM'oiulant disputed the account, on the KVtMuu'l of tho work being improperly ilono. Mr Lasoollos appearod for plaintiff; Mr Loo for defendant. Mr P. E. Hamlin acted aa intorprotor. A. quantity of evidence on both sides was taken, tho case lasting a considerable timo. J udgmont was givoa for plaintiff, with costs 355, and expenses £4 Bs. HOUOUEZ V. NEPE. This was a similar case to the last one, being a claim for £28 Os Gd, for building a house.

Mr Lascelles for plaintiff ; Mr Lee for defendant. The defence set up was that the building was left in an unfinished condition. Plaintiff admitted that he had left the building before it was in consequence of being unable to obtain a SUM ;<• of £14, which defendant had agreed to pay him on account before the house was finished. His Worship nonsuited the plaintiff, on the ground that the action was wrongfully brought, as the contract was^nofc completed. ... This concluded the business^