RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume IV, Issue 1052, 29 March 1867, Page 6

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday. DOIiNWKLT, V. .VI AUKS. In tliis case, in which his Worship had reserved judgment last Court day, judgment was given for plaintiff. JUDGMENTS CONFESSED. In the following cases, judgments were confessed Mills v. Moss ; Ashman v. T. March ; Same v. Coppell; Hunter & Co. v. George; Scabrooke v. Harkins ; McEwcn'.v. J. McCormick, £"3 2s Gd ; Ewer, and another v. McCormick, £2 12s ;T. McTCwcn v. Same, £112s 6d; Same v. Same, £19 ; O'Connor v. J. McCormick, £3 ; Wright v. McCormick, £7 Os ; Graham v. McCormick, °£1 ; 13cll v. Same, £1 ; Maginnis v. Same, £0 ; Wall v. Lees, £10. JUDGMENT TOE PLAINTIFFS. Judgment was giveu for plaintiff's in the following cases : —Mackie v. J. P. Sage, £6 10s ; Giles v. H. Warno, £15 13s lOd ; Forgic v. Patterson, £7 1-Js 1U1; Barrow v. J. liodgers, Ids; Mann v. C. Burton, £3 Gs 3d; Braham v. Smith, £0 0s 3d; Porter & Co. v. Wilson, £10 19s 8d; Seccombe & Son v. J. Mahoney, £3 7s ; James v. Elmslie, £5 ; Boberton & Co. v. jS T olan, £19 3s -Id. Defended Cases. GALE V. J. SMITH. Claim £12 lGs for wages. Mr. Kenny for plaintiff; Mr. Brookfield for the defendant. This was a claim for wages at the rate of 8s per week. The defence was that the plaintiff had been engaged by Thomas Smith, defendant's son, who is deceased, and that there had been no administration of the estate. Plaintiff took a nonsuit. GILES V. ~<U'f-\.IIY. ( laim £1. 2dc. Pevoridge appeared ior plaintiff. The defence was that the money had been paid in the presence of witnesses. Plaintiff deposed that he had never received payment of the account, and that it was still due. Had frequently demanded payment of the money. Judgment for plaintiff. W. WALT j:Its V. I!. LEDEAED. Claim £10 10s for use and occupation. Mr. Brookfield appeared for plaintiff"; Mr. Hill, junior, for defendant. This was a claim for use and occupation of a shop and premises in Queen-street, by virtue of an agreement entered into between the parties on the 31st of December last, the rental to be 30s per week. The defence was that the premises were in such a filthy state from insufficient drainage as to be uninhabitable, and defendant stated in evidence that lie had expended a sum of £10 on the premises. Several witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff deposed that there was a most offensive stench on the premises. Judgment for plaintiff. iiewin v. fordham. Claim £3. Mr. Brookfield appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Kcetlev for the defendant. Frederick Hesvin, examined by Mr. Brook, field, deposed that he had occupied some premises in Queen-street the property of defendant; had paid rates, for which allowance had been made by defendant. Left the premises on the 21th June, and in the beginning of the present year received a demand for payment of rates, which he had declined to pay. Mr. Diddams called upon witness, who referred hiin to Mr. Fordham. Witness had never made any agreement to pay rates, but Mr. Fordham had. proposed to pay half the amount of rates due. Witness was subsequently summoned by tlie collector and adjudged to pay the sum due for rates, lie now sought to recover from Mr. Fordhnm. Cross-examined : Allowance had "always been made by deducting the amount of rates paid from the rent, could produce receipts to prove tliat. Defendantdeposed that he had never requested the plaiuliff to pay the rates. Had allowed the plaintiff for rates levied on two occasions, the sum in dispute had been levied prior to plaintiff' vacating the premises. Judgment for plaintiff. G. DOUGLAS V. MCKENZIE. Claim £1, for work done. Mr. Brookfield appeared for plaintiff. This was a claim for initialing and numbering certain cards used by defendant at the last races, and also for procuring knives and forks and other articles required by the defendant in carrying on his business. The defence was that the demand made by piaintiff exceeded the amount of wages promised. Judgment for plaintiff 12s 6d. The Court adjourned for half an-hour. SAMUELS, JACOBS AND CO. V. BUHNSIDE. Claim £G lis for goods. Mr. Hesketh appeared for plaintiff, Mr Brookfield for the defendant. This was a claim to rceover the amount paid on account of certain goods, which the plaintiffs alleged had not been delivered according to agreement. The defence was that the goods in question had been delivered at Mr. Myer's wholesale grocery, Fort-street, as per agreement. Several witnesses were examined on both sides, the evidence disclosing that a certain parcel had been delivered to Mr. Myers and placed on board ship for delivery at Tauranga. But the point in dispute was whether or not this was tlie parcel which formed the subject of tlieaction. The plaintiffs alleged that the purchase of the parcel in dispute ;vas made on the 11th February, but the defendants in evidence stated that the first parcel had been shipped on the sth of the same month. Lewis Samuels deposed that ho had purchased two parcels one on the 3rd or 4th. February, and another on the 11th. At this stage of the proceedings the defendant's books were produced, showing that two parcels had keen sold to the plaintiffs, the j first on the 28th December, and the 2nd on the 11th February. Defendant's bookkeeper examined by Mr. Brookfield, deposed: The three books produced are the day books. I cannot find any evidence of any sale during the month of February, other than that on the 11th. Cross-examined by Mr. Hesketh.: I will not swear that a sale was not made to Mr. Samuels during my absence.

Mr. Myers, cleric, deposed that the parcel which had been shipped to Tauranga was a paper one, "which had been enclosed in canvas by him. His "Worship reserved judgment. E. WALTERS T. MESSENGER, JTTNIOE. Claim Bs. for pastry. Mr. Hesketh appeared for plaintiff; Mr.Macdonald for the defendant. Judgement for plaintiff. HUNTER AND CO. V. MCQUILLAN. Claim £16. Mr. O'Neill for plaintiff; Mr. Brookfield for defendant. Plaintiff's accountant, "W. S. Flint, deposed th at the accounts were due by the books. Mr. Brookfield objected to the further progress of the case as the bill of particulars was defective. Mr. O'Neill accepted a nonsuit. iIOEEIS v. IICFABLANE. Claim £'12 13s 9d. interest on a mortgage. Mr. Brookfield appeared for plaintiff. This was a claim for five quarters' interest on a mortgage for £70 at the rate of 12; V per cent. The defence was that the amount had been paid. Mr. J. B. Russell deposed that the defendant had paid a sum of £10 not for interest but in reduction of the principal. Judgment for plaintiff, the amount to be paid in weekly instalments of ss. This concluded the business, and tho Court rose at 3.30 p.m.