DISTRICT COURT.—Wednesday.

New Zealand Herald, Volume IV, Issue 1075, 25 April 1867, Page 5

DISTRICT COURT.—Wednesday.

1 (Before his Honor Judge Beckham.) The adjourned sitting of the District; Court was held at the Eesident Magistrate's Court House, at 10.30 a.m. yesterday, when the followinnr eases were disposed of: — "• J. HILL A>'D OTHEES V. J. S. STEVEXS. Claim £30 on promissory note, with, interest. Mr. Beveridgo appeared for plaintiff. ■Judgment for plaintiff. SAME T. H. P. GRENVILLE AND OLI EYE. Claim £'03, for a promissory note. Mr. Beveridge appeared for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff. H. B. JOHXSTOSE T. J. HASP. Ciaim £70 2s Cd, for interest. Mr. .i. B. linssell appeared for plaintifF, Mr. O'Neill for the defendant. Mr. Header Wood, examined by Mr. J. 13. Eussell : I produce a mortgage deed dated June 18th lfoS, to which I was the attesting witness, and which bears the defendant's signature. The deed bears interest at the rate of 15 per cent. Frederick Brookfield deposed that the defendant was indebted for the interest from the date of the mortgage deed. The defendant had admitted his liability since the commencement of the action. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs £8 16s. T.. CONSTABLE V. J. DOUGLASS. Ciaim £32 -Is, for rent, etc. Mr. Brookfield appeared for plaintiff'. •Judgment for plaintiff with costs, £6 9s. CEUICKSHAXK & CO. T. J. FISLAY, JCX. Claim £21 15s 9d for goods. •Judgment for plaintiff, with costs £4 9s. EATOX & DEWOLF V. J. AI'KEKZIE. Claim £2-1 Gs lid. Mr. Brookfield appeared for plaintiff. Mr. -J. B. Itussell deposed that prior to tho commencement of the action the defendant admitted the account for £22 4s lOd, and instructed witness to prepare a mortgage deed »• security, which, the defendant afterwards refused to sign. •Judgment tor plaintiff, with costs £5 ss. ACP.ELE QCAETIEE V. D. MCIXXIS. Claim £74 Cs 2d, amount of a promissory note.

R •• -Mr. TVeston appeared for plaintiff, and tho IT Ciiie was adjourned until next Court daj r . if- ? J- FAIBBUIiX v. T. PEEK. fe Claim ,C2l lis for interest, £7 of which had js Leon paid. * -Jr. Macdonald appeared for plaintiff, and luk'ir.ent was given for plaintiff for £14 lis, by ■% d-fauit with costs, £-1 19s. rt * , S. H. SMITH V. E. MILLS, - Cla.ui £'33 9s 7d, for bill and interest, Jir. Erookileld for plaintiff. " 4 Defendant confessed judgment for £30, and -k cost.-; L'l4s, which were taken in full of all deZ * Eiand<. ' -* A JI. MOIIGAX V. HOBI TATTEOA. \-j Claim £'41 15s lOd for goods. | 3lr- Weston appeared for plaintiff; Messrs, Broo!;field and J. B.liussell for defendant. L It will be remembered that this case has alK t | rca dy been before the public. The defendant is | a loatbuilder, and on the first occasion brought £ " <ir an action in the District Court to recover tho jf i/'i a l moi j n> : alleged to be due for a boat supplied to ~ ** ' Jc ' defendant. The defendant on that occasion ( r'pt. !! a> induced to confess judgment by Mr. Do s ? Il " C!I T» native interpreter, and fin application to J et a =''Je proceedings was subsequently made by i » the defendant's counsel, on the ground that the , confer-ion of judgment had been made under a f i; The application was granted " p '^ L ' r da.y was fixed lor the day of hearing. l>c-:o!-e the evidence was gone into, Mr. ' U field objected to the further progress of i l incase on the ground that the District Court ai j to : i urlsc liction in cases where a European It nativc vrero °PP osed in sums not exceeding '[ ail(1 arguc-d that the cause could be heard of by the [Resident Magistrate, and £ a special bench of justices in the Resident Maeisf tra:e s Court, fa ( t . 1 ",-'f r - , nor said the question was one of conF A vv'n' ,l 0 ". ri l )01 ' tancc > and therefore de- | 1 - M „ r ' t° decide it definitely, as many similar r ,r ' jU l'-l doubtless arise in that Court. t 1 , r '' considerableargument His Honor said - ! IC ' , * r <'4 '".e case was too doubtful to be decided ill t jo District Court, which ho thought had no j-trbciietion in such cases. > p, . W. MOBEIN V. J. CIABEE. X -I Vi lii,n r J '. 2213s 4d > use and occupation. for i,laintiff; Mr - iieskotil f ° r lliirf iloar lug_ the endence in this case, his ' " i- s/' aV n JU< | gm r ont for defendant for ■JU4 eos ' £5 - : Vi „ r ' s > for work and materials. flnt r St i? a i n > d H W a PP eare d plain- [ IIUSSdI and B -oMel P d for ; f% l ''? opening of the case a lengthy argument ! iltowlSe 1 ! 0^ 011 H lO n OUUScI on oitller side ' as * ' iwff work aU ? ged to have beea d ° ne • s p e rformed according to the feJlS'safc - ail P s P ec >fication, or merely fflllptlie pTaintiff's ° S ii ?' a PP cai 'c d tha't served a notice upon

defendant's solicitors to produce the plans and specifications which had not been complied with, on the ground that the originals were in the hands of the Engineer-in-Chief, and that it was upon the original plan and specification that the agreement was entered into. The defendant deposed that at the time of making tho agreement a tracing of the plan was produced. Between three weeks and a month later the agreement was signed, and the tracing was again produced. It was now in the possession of a sub-contractor carrying on the work at Kangiriri. Had never shown the plan to Mr. Russell. His Honor said it was apparent that sufficient notice to produce had not been givon, and the case was accordingly adjourned until next Court day for the production of tho requisite documents, plaintiff to pay the costs of the adjournment. J. GITEEK V. irSK. Claim £'31 16s. 9d., for work dono and services. Mr. Beveridge appeared for plaintiff; Mr. Brook field for the defendant. TJiis was a claim for balance of account duo for services rendered as dairyman and general i farm servant. The plaintifl had entered tho employment of the defendant on the 11th Nov., ISOS, for one year, and was to receive £10 per annum in addition to half the dairy produce and every fifth calf. The plaintifTs evidence was taken, and the Court adjourned until Tuesday next.