RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume IV, Issue 1118, 14 June 1867, Page 6

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thubsday. (Before Tlios. Beckham, Esq., R.M.) JUDGMENT CONFESSED.

In the following cases judgment was confessed : —Clarke y. Grace, £14 lis; Low and Motion v. Smith, £7 2s 6d ; Trustees estate of E. Cooper v. Douglas, £13 10s. JUDGMENTS FOE PLAINTIFFS. Potter v. Merrett, 12s ; Bowden v. St. Aubyn, 14s 3d; Smith, v Hamlim, £1 14s ; Quick and Co. v. McKenzie, £3 8s 6d; Morgan v. Ferguson, £8 17s 8d ; Gilberd & Manlej y. H. & M. Niccol, £12 10s 3d ; Same y. P. S. McKenzie, £2 3s ; Someryille y. Aitkin, £G ss; Brown Campbell & Co. v. St. Aubyn, £16 6s 6d. Defended Cases. TA.nS.ER V. BABCHAED. ' Claim £20 damages. Messrs. Wynn and Joy, for tlie plaintiff; Mr. Macdonald for the defendant. In this case the plaintiff had entered into an agreement with the defendant for the occupation of an hotel, paying him £15 cash, andgiying two promissory notes for a further sum of £15. Plaintiff was to remain in occupation of the premises with the stock and fixings until the expiration of the licence. The plaintiff after occupying the premises for some time went away leaving his servant in charge, but on his return he found a person named. Thomas Robertson in charge by the authority of the defendant. Two days later plaintiff saw the defendant and demanded the restoration of the £15 paid on account of the agreement, but defendant replied that he might do his best about it. For the defence it was argued that the subject matter of the claim was above £20 and consequently beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, but the Court ruled that the plaintiff's claim was limited to £20, and therefore within the jurisdiction of the Court. Mr. Macdonald called Jane Whittattfr who had been in the employment of Barchard as barmaid and subsequently of Parker, with the latter of whom, however, she had made no agreement, merely agreed to remain for a few days. She did not know Parker had left until the morning after, and subsequently continued in the service of Barchard. Alfred Barchard, the defendant, deposed that he was in tlie house every day after the agreement was entered into, and had taken possession when plaintiff left. Had presented the promissory ■ notes to the plaintiff and demanded payment; they were still unpaid. Mr. Macdonald then argued that the memorandum of agreement did not entitle the plaintiff to possession until after payment of the promissory notes. Mr. Wynn in reply pointed out that defendant had ousted tne plaintiff before the promissory notes became duei. His Worship said there were, several points to be considered, and he would give judgment on Thursday next; D. MAHEHAJSi V. BECCOMBE AND SON. Claim £4 3s 4dj money pud.

Mr. Wynn for the plaintiff. In this case the plaintiff had been in occupation as a weekly tenant of certain premises belonging to the defendant. Had been assessed for certain rates which ho had paid and which he now sought to recover, the landlord being the real party liable in such a case. Defendant did not appear, and judgment was given by default. CLAYTON V. HARSH. Claim £10 6s 3d, pigs sold and delivered. Mr. Wynu for the plaintiff, Mr. Hesketh for the defendant. In this case the plaintiff alleged that he had agreed to deliver four pigs to tho defendant on the condition that they were to be of a certain quality, and defendant had refused to take them. The defence was that the pigs were never ordered, and that no bargain had been struck between the parties. His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for £3 5s 4i-d, the amount of loss sustained by plainSHOWING ATTENTION. During the proceedings a person named Bernard McLaughlin made considerable disturbance, for which his Worship ordered him to be taken into custody. After tho adjournment the prisoner was brought up when the following amusing colloquy took place. His "Worship (to the prisoner) do you know that by the offence you have committed you have rendered yourself liable to fine or imprisonment by disturbing the Court; you were not interested in tho case, and therefore it was highly indecorous of you or any other person to interrupt the proceedings of the Court. Prisoner : I am very sorry for it your Worship. His Worship : Of course the Court personally has nothing whatever to do with the matter, but if such things occur again the Court will not suffer you or any other person to depart with a mere rebuke only, but will visit the offence with severe punishment. . Prisoner : Your Worship must know there is nobody in Auckland who loves you better than I do (laughter.) His Worship : Then you must show your attention some other way. You are discharged. Mr. M'Laughlin then left the Court amidst considerable merriment. HALES V. MARKHA3I. Claim £2 25., for goods. Mr. Hesketh for the plaintiff; Mr. Wynn for the defendant. Plaintiff took a nonsuit. ADEANE V. MORROW. Claim £12 Bs. Mr. Macdonald for plaintiff; Mr. Wynn for the defendant. Plaintiff took a nonsuit. ELLIOT V. FAGCK Claim £3 Is. 6d. Mr. Macdonald, on behalf of the defendant, confessed judgment. DUDLEY V. SICCAtTL AND HIGG. Claim £6 16s 2d. Mr. Hesketh for plaintiff, Mr. Macdonald for the defendant. This case was adjourned until Thursday next. 13 Cases Adjourned. The following were adjourned : —Copland v. Coolahan, £11; Webster v. Alpe, £3 9s 7d; O'Connor v. Graham, £8 9s 3d ; Long v. Dornwell, £1 15s. The Court rose at 2.d0 p.m.

POLICE COUET.—Thursday.

(Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., 8.M.) DRUNKENNESS. John Shiers, John Prazer, Andrew Barchard, and Charles Holster, were punished for drunkenness. COMMON DRUNKARD. Mary Walton pleaded guilty to being a common drunkard, and was sentenced to one month's imprisonment.