AUCKLAND DISTRICT COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume V, Issue 1305, 21 January 1868, Page 3

AUCKLAND DISTRICT COURT.

Monday, Januaby 20. (Before His Honor Judge Beckham.) MCLAKXOK V. BUItTOX. Hi 3 Honor gave judgment for plaintiff in this case for £3 l°a. T. J. JIASEFIELD AND CO. V. E. WOOLFIELD. Claim £32 6s. Mr. J. B. Kussell appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Brookfield for the defendant. In r ,his ease it appeared th»t the plnintiff had performed certaia work for defendant's father, and on ils completion the presentdefendant called for if, and gave a promissory note as payment for the eum of £51. This bill was presented and paid. It was alleged by the dofendant in hia evidence, that in giving the bill he had stipulated that onfi-half of it ehould bo renewed. Defendant did nogociate for the renewal of the bill two days before it became due, and Bubsequently on his stating that he had a bill becoming due, which would bo dishonored, plain!iff consented to give u cheque for £33. He alleged, however, in his evidence that this was done on condition that the renewed biilHhould bear tho defendant's endorsement. This endoraemant was not given, and plaintiff subsequently demanded tho return of the cheque, the alleged reason Leing that defendant had not carried out the conditions on which the cheque was given by endorsing the bill. In hie defence the defendant altogether denied having agraed to endorse the bill. It was dishonored at the Bank, and plaintiff now brought an action to recover tha amount of it from Mr. Edward Woolfield. Thole irne I counsel having addressed the Court, His Honor reserved judgment. W. BHEIISON V. J. HEEON'. Cltiim £24, for rent. Mr. Hesketh, instructed by Mr. J. B. Eussell, for plnintiff; Mr. Brookfield for defendant. This was a claim for two quarters' reut cm premises in Queen-street Plaintiff's evidence having been taken, it appeared that credit had been given in the declaration for £3 10j on the 23rd September, whereas it should have been the 9ih September. Mr. Brookfield submitted that ho waa mislead and prejudiced, and asked for an adjournment. His client wns present, and if he had been aware of the discrepancy, it would have made a material difference in tho pleadings. Mr. Hesketh objected, inasmuch as it simply amounted to giving defendant credit for £3 10s in excels of wlwt ho was entitled to, and whioh it appeared he was willing to a-.'cept. It was no mistake of his, but simply a clerical error made in the attor- j ncy's ofllue. 'Iho caee was adjournol until Monday next, with leave to amond, the costs to bo in the direction of the Court. T. P. MASFIELD AND 03, V. WAtHATT OOED-MIXING COMPANY. Claim £32 18s, goods supplied, work and labor, &c. Mr. J. B. Ru3sell appeared /or plaintiff, Mr. J. Russell for defendant. The defence wae, Ist, that the goods were not supplied at defendant's order ; 2-id, that the alleged work was njt performed; and 3rd, th'it the articles alleged to have been supplied were unsuitable. Evidence having beau adduced on behalf of the plaintiff, Mr. J. Russell submitted thnt the plaintiff must be nonsuited. The defendant was sued in the declaration by Thomas J. Ma efL-ld and Co, but notH jg ha J been adduced in pr.of of indebtedness to this firm, on the contrary, th'i plaintiff had stated that Mr. had assigned the interest of the firm to plaintiff aince the transaction referred to. The real plaintiffs should have been Maseiield as assignee of Viekery and Mneefield. EU Honor directed a nonsuit to be recorded. J. WATT V. A. EGGLKTON. Claim £24 17a- 9d, for hire of the cutter Wave, from the 14th June 1867, to August 28th 1867. Mr. Brookfield appeared for plaintiff, Mr. Wilson or the defendant. In this < aee the pluintiff deposed that he had let tho cutter Wave to defendant, on condition of receiving one-third of her earnings. He had been pai d up to the 14th of June, when tho original contract was continued. Mr. Wilson proposed to call evidence to prove that the second contract had been made with Messrs. Harris and Laurie, and that there was no contract of hiring. Mr. Brookfield objected to such evidence being adduced, on the ground that it was in the nature of a special defence, it was not set out in the pleadings. Mr. Wilson argued that that line of defence was eet out by inference in the pleadings. Hβ proposed to prove that tho contract was not made between tho present plaintiff and defendant, and in order to do so would show that it was made with a third party. The case was ultimately adjonrned until Monday next; defendant paying the costs of the day. The Court adjourned u:itil Monday next.