MONGONUI.

New Zealander, Volume XX, Issue 2080, 2 April 1864, Page 5

MONGONUI.

;:i ' [_PEOM A' CORRESPONDENT, j ’ ’’ ,t; -yi.,;?fa - March 26. We had the satisfaction to spend a pleasant evening on Wednesday last, on the occasion of a social gathering, consisting chiefly of the IVlongoniii Special Settlers, held in the Octagon House of Worship,..in the Oruaiti Valley. After the company had partaken of tea, the meeting was entertained with several short addresses, on subjects of local and general, secular and religious, interest. A brief review was taken-of the experience of the four years of settlement, and a contrast was drawn between the state 1 of the district at the date of arrival and its present improved appearance. On arrival, the whole of the territory devoted to specialsettlement was one unproductive waste, in which worthless fern and scrub held undisputed sovereignty, without trace of 'cultivation and lacking a single human habitation. Now, if all their glowing anticipations -had' not" been ■ realized * enough ,had : ' been achieved by prudent and persevering workers to sustain contentment and inspire gratitude. A fair amount of land had been subdued by the plough and' the spade labour had met a reasonable return; and an encouraging-amount of live stock and poultry had, been acquired. was, however* regretted that several valuable settlers had been 'induced to; forsake .the district, in, hope of. realizing higher-remuneration for their labour, elsewhere. The meeting was congratulated oh the friendly feeling existing amongst themselves; on the preservation \ofinnbroken -peace ' with =the natives, the means of intercourse, and on the enjoyment of the"weekly opportunity of meeting to worship God. ; ; The young were encouraged to diligent use of a ; small library weinoticed on the shelves, and- the pursuit* of''knowledge by-historical examples and all to thankfulness for civil and religious liberty, by contrast 3 with other times. -• A decidedly social character was given to the meet- 3 ing, and free conversation encouraged.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, '; Thursday. - [Before Thos. Beckhaw, Esq., Judge.] There were sixteen cases entered for hearing this day. The following were Tried Snodgrass v. Dickinson Geo.— In this case, which was decided at a former Court, the defendant had called and paid the amount, £ll 55., but had not ’paid the costs. The claim was for that amount. Judgment for plaintiff. , Snodgrass y. Minnixt. —Claim £3,Os. lid. Judgment for plaintiff. ~• , . t _ Cleveland v. Marshall. —Plaintiff in -this case claimed £3O due on sale of the yacht Gnome. The original price was £6O, but £3O had been paid on "account. On the plaintiff being called into; the box, he admitted there had been an agreement drawn up which he did not produce. Mr. Brookfield, who appeared for plaintiff, asked for an adjournment.; -Mr. Wynn objected.-—— Mr. Brookfield reminded the Court that the case had been adjourned twice to suit his learned friend’s convenience, and what Was sauce for the goose was sauce for the -gander.- -It was ultimately decided- to adjourn the case on ’payment- of costs, including, solicitor’s fee.—■—• His Honor advised the defendant, if he was ever again 1 engaged in litigation, to tell his counsel all particulars. Chandos v. King.—This was a claim for 355., the value of a gold pin. Mr. Wynn for plaintiff. Plaintiff stated that he had given two tickets for a concert to :be given at the Brunswick Hall for sale to a man named Haddon. On applying for the money for the tickets, 125., he was unable to obtain it,"and received a breastpin as security for the amount. On taking it to Mr. King to ascertain the value of the pin, it was detained, Mr. King stating that the pin had been purchased of him ' for 355., but never paid for.-- Defendant stated that he had sold the pin to Haddon, who had dealt honourably with him several times, and he had promised to pay for it in a few days. On-its being presented by plaintiff, he said he must see Haddon. He saw him next day, and asked him how it was his pirn was being hawked about town, not being paid for. Haddon replied he had been drinking, and would settle for the"'tickets, and authorized defendant to keep the pin until he called. .The value was 30s. Haddon could not he produced, as he was put of the country,-»and-owed another amount.— His Honor said, according to defendant’s own statement, he had sold the pin. The remedy was against Haddon. Judgment for plaintiff for 30s. j Chandos v. Varty.—The plaintiff claimed £4- for damage he had sustained by defendant re-letting the Brunswick Hull, after he had engaged it for an evening’s performance.- VVr. Wynn for plaintiff, . Mr. J. B. Russell for defendant. The plaintiff said: lam one of the plaintiffs in this acti«n, and the husband of the other plaintiff. I was desired to make arrangements with Mr. Varty’s man on the 2nd or 3rd March. I did so on Mr. Varty’s premises. I asked whether the Brunswick Hall was at liberty on Tuesday, the Bth March. He entered ray name in the book, in the manner he had been accustomed to before.- It was entered “ Tuesday, 8. Miss F. Kooke, Brunswick Hall.” No price was agreed on. The gentleman present said, “At what price ?■” I said, “Oh, as I have been accustomed.” The book purported that the Hall was to be let that day to Miss Rooke. The price was to be the same as before. He said it was all right.... In pursuance of that agreement I took steps for an entertainment, and issued bills and advertisements. The letter produced I got Irom Varty. [lt was to the effect that as plaintiff had not paid for the Hall it had' been let to Mr. Everiste for his Diorama,] - I paid £4 to Mr. Varty’s man, John Day, in the Hall. I have paid him on Mr. Varty’s account once before, and £5 to Mr. Everiste for his claim on the Hall. To Mr. Russell: Mr. Varty has only on'ce refused to let me the Hall withr out payment. On each occasion since he refused I always paid in advance. I will not swear that Mr. Varty has not said he would not let it without.— —Fanny Chandos said : I am the wife of the last witness. T recollect the circumstance. I comrjiunicated with Mr. Everiste, and in order to induce him to forego his claim I gave him £5: He would not take less. • - John Varty, ,the defendant, said : On some occasions I have let the Hall to. plaintiff. My arrangements with him have-varied. In all cases I required the money to be paid in advance, and on one occasion allowed him to pay the door-keeper, as I would 'not trust him. I have latterly refused' to trust Mr. Chandos."; John Day had no authority to receive money,except on, one occasion by. special agreement.—r—-To Mr. Wynn : I do not on .all occasions require the money to be advanced.' I diet let him have the Hall once without payment, but - Mr. Moore had promised ito pay.- I did another ; Abxpmfh.Jdndness.—-Alharles. Dotld .said : I am in Mr. Varty s einploymcnt; and remember letting-tiie Hall Jo? Chandos on the 4th March., •Mr." Chandos 'wished to engage-it for Tuesday, the 8 th, and - wished Miss Rooke’s name to be put down., I told him he would have to pay in advance. I asked who ■"would pay the money, and'he said Miss Rooke would call the next, morning. The Hall was let on Saturday, the sth,, i think, in the afternoon. The Hall lias not been .paid for by Mr. Chandos, or Miss Rooke.. „The .money has not been.paid.* -To the Court: It was Friday, tlie 4th March, .plaintiff called. The’ entry would be made’ on the Sth instant, not on the day.he called.——Mr. Varty recalled .Before I let the Hall to Mr. Everiste he paid part of the rent.-——Judgment deferred., , , . ~ •y '■ Ding-W alt. zisStuart.—Plaintiff sought to recover £6, damage sustained ; by defendant* ‘h’aving.taken.some ' premises oh 29th February, according to agreement, Tor one year, and then .not having occupied them.-——Mr. ’Beveridge for plaintiff; Mr; Wyn.n for defendant.—— Nonsuited. 1 . . .. ' .

" Simons' v. Allow. —Claim £2 for three days’ wages for'lodkinh after the Osprey:— Mr. Beveridge for plaintiff.; 'Mr! J. B. Russell for defendant.—Judgment;for £1 4s. . . Wallace V. Bartlett.—The plaintiff in this case set up' a claim for £34 35,, for six silver watches sold and delivered. £9 ; 15a. had been paid info Court for a portion of the account which was admitted to' be correct.. —Mr. Lee was for plaintiff, Mr. Merriman for defendant. The plaintiff..stated that lie sold, to defendant, in his shop, ! tour silver watches for 80s. each, and two for 80s. each,'for which he made out an invoice, and gave no guarantee with them. "He ’ admitted telling defendant they were good sound watches, and fit for sale.. He said, the.wliole twelve watches then sold were wound up and hot left oh inspection. Defendant wanted to return them," and he would not have them as one was damaged., - _ -Alfred Bartlett" the defendant, said the watches "were left for 1 inspection, and plaintiff had said they might 'behold for £6 10s. or £7, retail, without, looking into them. He gave the name of the" maker, and said his ’(plaintiff’s) father examined the 1 watches before" they were sent out; Being busy, defendant' laid them aside for sixteen days, and when he took them partly in pieces they were not perfect watches. The “ lid” of one flew off the, watch on pressing the spring. They were returned three times, and on one occasion' he was referred to’a place were such "article’s were sold wholesale. ’ Defendant,"however," refused- to have anything to do with such transactions. He never received an invoice’. Ofle of ‘ defendant’s daughters, who was in the shqp at the time the witches were left," said they were to be kept if- they were found as fepfesented.——-His Honor said the' evidence 'of The "two"parties was diametrically opposed." "He was not Satisfied there" had been an.absolute; gale, and directed a non-suit to bo entered. .T- ■ ■: ■ • - - ■■ .