DISTRICT COURT.

Mataura Ensign, Volume 7, Issue 369, 27 June 1884, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

A i-Htiii;', cil ilic (in!.ri'-.i. < I'jUii, v.-jj. » h'-1<"'l ;i(i lnvci'ijai'^ill, oji ' VVctiii<j})(J:i. :;,Ay-'-, v/licn lIm: pubin; cxinrniiiil i )ii ol Al 1 ::-:. .'»/■ J jii,yr':, a ilcblor, \v;i.', ':i«'-i ■>•.• I < ; / ) 1 1 ] » 1 1 - 1 ••: I. 'fc'uy Jiol,l(jwing *::i-<:-i liavi: ;i loiyi.l illtur iiL I ~ TIIOS. 11AIU1Y V. S'Mri'll 1,A .'.!; COt'.V'l'V o'd.W'irr,. ; ' ' ! This w:is ;i)i :'.';( i')ii ii'i<l<T Ih'! Conkraefoi's'; Dl'ljLs Act, li-i7i, \n i'ji:ov.':r tji'.: Suunof'lM C(jf "wliicli jiidgiinrni, hh'l \)\-m.w the j [)l;iintiiT ;i-,iin-b < >':i:i .■!<:.-. 1 )u;i^l:is, ;i f;oni.nu> ! tor urutiM. 1 (lii jiPLVMU- --'luro/idanLs,! in Miv He.sident, Slii^istr.iu "s Court. Mr Russell for. tin,' plamtiiV, and 'Mr W.nlu J!or the .defendants. — Thu only point hoToru ;ho Court was whether or not a cerLiiiuaU: from the EesidenL Magistrate luul b'.'en properly served on; | the defendants in neeordance with the provisions oE liie Act. — Mr UusseH tendered his own evidence, and (iuposod tnathe haJd served ,the, notice from th-j workmun,' along with a numl)cr oi others, o^ the County Clerk. The certiiic.it''.-? I'mm tlie Magistrate wcr<j in the ; possession of the clerk at the lime, and witness said '-Now you have' 'the m altogether." j — 'Mhr Wade admitted \h:it the deTendants [had money belonging to Douglas | hi 1 their possession. They orly desii'ud to know 'who; was - legally entitled :to j receive .iij — E. , P. MacGouu,,,: County | Clerk, deposed that he had received ffom Mr 'Russell a batch oE • oiirtitieiitie"s''signe(l by the Resident Magistrate, ampn;jj which was, oi>e: iiv connection with Barb's case. Tt.ea-e-\vere .no notices frpm the workmen with t ieni. but he afterwards : got the liutiee!/.' ■ 'I'hei'i was no , such transaction as the cortiticiites being lianded back to Mr °Russull, 'iiaid, ■ sub^ scquently served on witness ■ together' with the -notices. -rjlifj- Honor tho ighfc the service of the certificates and no ,Lws; had r beeff'properiy-raartej-aHhou'j;U--he gc lisUleivd .the, Council we.rc<iuitc justiucd in jlK'ingiiig ' tfio- hiat'tur'ihl : o Cuiift', 1 the 'case being" oi! a very involved nature. Judgment was given for the plaintiff, with costs, Li \C>s. \ .'■{ 11. IRVING V. SOUTiIJjAXD CO UN TV (foU^OIL. This was a case ih' which L 22 7.s| (sd_ was claimed on similar gt*b,tinds, the only difference in this being that the workman's,. llotite' had been signed by his solicitors on' his behalf.—Mr Kusscll for the' plaintiff,! and Mr Wade for the defeiidants. — After argunaonthis Honor held that signature ■ of , tl e 8 'claim-' 1 ant's agent was sufficient;' and' g;ive judgment for the plaintiff, with costs, lA it>t>... .r.