RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume V, Issue 1307, 24 January 1868, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thuksdat. (Before Thomas ISockliam, Esq., R.M.) JUDGMENTS FOH PLAINTIFF 3. W. J. Young v. P. 0. Frasi, £12 16s 9i, goods. Mr. Beveridge for pluintiff; W. Possenistie v. S. Hal!, £2 103 ; Auckland Gas Company t. P. S. Mackenzie, £1 16s, Mr. Beveridge for plaintiff; Trustees Jones and Co. v. \v. Rose, £2 10a Bd, Mr. J. fiusaell for plaintiff; W. J. Toung v. L. BHarris, £8 9a. 3d, Mr. Beveridge for plaintiff. * JUDGMENTS CONFESSED. T. Fayford v. T. Shepherd, £4, 10s fid, to be paid in instalments of 5a a-week ; W. Jone3 v. A. Lunnigham, £2 16s Bi, Mr. J. i<. Bussell for plaintiff. Defended Cases. c. gekenwat v. p. 8. mackenzie. Claim £10 10s. This was n claim for use nnd occupation of the Queen's Hoad Hotel, under n. -written agreement between the plaintiff and defendant, and also for money had and received. The case had first come before- the' Court on the previous Court day, when the learned counsel for defendant had objected to the agreement being produced in evidence, as it was not Btnmped. The ClerK of tho Court being unable to tell tho amount of the penalty, the mutter was referred to the Commissioner of Stamps—who fixed the penalty at 23., which was accordingly paid, and the document having been duly stamped, the case again came on for hearing.

Mr. Revcridge appeared for plaimiff; Mr. J. soil for defendant.

Plaintiff haviug deposed to the claim, Hγ. Kussell contended that the terms ef the agreement only bound the defendant to pay the rent out of tho proceeds, and inasmuch as no evidence had been adduced to show that the necessary amount had been raceived the plaintff must be nonsuited. Another objection was fatal to the claim was that the agreement its.elf was illegal as the consideration moving from plaintiff to defendant, was that the latter should carry on the busine63 without a license. Mr. Beveridge replied, contending that with regard to the fiiet objection, the defundant should have been called to dopose to the amount of the weekly receipts, and wjth regard to the agreement it had not been shown that there was no license when the agreement was executed.

Plaintiff, examined by Mr. J. Kussell, said L. Adams' name wne over the door. Had lent hie license to defendant to prevent finee. Could not tell what amount wae received under the agreement (agreement produced and read) to the efiect that the weekly rent of £3 10e. and license fee were to be paid out of the business receipts. Mr. J. Kussell quoted the case of Whig v. Shuttleworth, to show that where the contract bound one of the parties to an illegality, the whole contract wae vitiated. Mr. Beveridga having replied, His Worship reserved judgment. MABBFIELD AND CO.'.V JONES AND CO. Claim 15 2s 6d, goods, &o. Mr. J. B. Russell for plaintiff, Mr. J. Kussell for defendant. The plaintiff's evidence having been taken, judgment was confessed for the amount claimed. MATIT A. GIMERD V. A. KNIGHT AND WIFE. Claim £2 12s. Mr. Joy appenred for plaintiff, Mr. Brookfield lor defendant. Mr. Brookfield at the opening of the case said the defendant Knight was now in prison, having been convicted of larceny at thelast Criminal Sessions. He ■was, therefore, precluded from appearing in person to defend the claim. In fact he was legally dead as far as this claim, was concerned, and the case must break down. Mr. Joy sa : d if the defendant IFnight was dead Mr. Brookfield himself ought to be charged with manslaughter, as he in bis capacity of Crown Prosecutor had been chieflj instrumental in killipg him. (Laughter.) Mr. Brootfield eaid the dates in tne declaration disclosed the fact that the debt had been contracted subsequently to the defendant Knight's conviotion. It appeared that the declaration had been made out so as to conjoin the defendant and his wife, but by a mistako of the clerk of the Court, the summons contained only the name of the male defendant. After some farther argument a nonsuit was rem>. Joy: Wo shall be at liberty to bring it again. His Worship: Of course, byand-bye. The Court declined to allow costs. B. WALCH T. J. JACOB 3, (INTBBPIiBADEB). Mr. Boveridje for plaintiff, Mr. Joy for defendant. This was im interpleader case to try the ownership of certain goods taken in execution under process issued from the Resident in pursuance of a judgment obtained in the caae of J. Jacobs v. Woods. Evidence having been taken, to the effect that the present plaintiff had bought the goods from Woods for £15, previously to contracting the debt to Jacobs. Mr. Joy addressed the Court, contending that there had evidently been collusion between the present plaintiff and Woods. His Worship eaid in the faco of the evidence that had been adduced there was no alternative hut to gfve judgment for plaintiff. It certainly did look fikn a etrange affair, and it was open to some suspicion, but unless the Court had reason to believe that the plaintiff and his sister had committed perjury, there was no alternative but to accept their evidonce. . . Judgment was according given for plaintiff. Ci dayis v. o. yf. oyrsus. Claim £10. on a promissory noto, Mr. Beveridgo for plaintiff; Mr. Keetley for defendant. In this case the note had originally been made payable to Mr. G. W. Ov>en, who deposited it at the Bank for collection. The Bank endorsed the note over to Mr. O- Davis, and notice was afterwards given that the note was dishonoured. After heading the evidence, His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff. W. JONES V. CUNNINGHAM. Claim £2 16s Bd, passage money. Mr. Joy appeared for plaintiffAfter hearing the evidence, t '■ His Worship g&Ye judgment for plaintiff, £110s.