AUCKLAND DISTRICT COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume V, Issue 1310, 28 January 1868, Page 3

AUCKLAND DISTRICT COURT.

Monday, Jakuart 27. (Before His Honor Judse Beclcham.) HARBISON V. MOWBEAY. Claim £13 17s Sd, on a promissory note. Defendant did not iippear, and plaintiff having deposed to the presentation of the note, and notice of its dishonour. Judgment was given for plaintiff, with coste, £3 ss. BCOTT T. 3?EV m EI.Tj. Claim £86 19b, work and labor. Mr. .Joy appenrod for the plaintiff; Mr. Whitaker for the defendant, Mr. Joy, at the opening of the case, said the claim was of such r peculiar character, and the questions involved having lefeienoeto mutters which only those who hfid experience in them were competent to understand fully, that they could be best referred to a jury. fli\ Honor thought it was out of the power of the Court to empannel a jury at this lute etugo, unloes with (he consent of the other side. I

Mr. Wlvitakor declined to submit the case to a jury.

Mr. Joy opened the case to the Court. This was un uction to recover the sum of £86 19e for work done by Ihe pliinlilT, his wife, nnd two sons, under u purol iigrcoineut entered into between pliiintifl' and defendant about November, 1565, also for moniiy due in lieu of use of certain bullocks Tho particulars of the claim were for driving and shearing sheep ; work dono nt 30* for four days in each weoV, estimated loss by non-supply of bullocks for two days in each week, goods eupplied, &c. It appeared that there was a set-off against the plaintiff tor £-t R , which' ho ultimately admitted. Tho real poitts in dispute tlien were whether tho amount paid io defendant wns £23 or £21, and the claim for non-eupply of bullocka according to the alleged agreement. His Honor said, in his opinion, tho Bet off exceeded the amount legitimately due to the plaintiff. He did not think the latter was entitled to the £31 4s balance. Judgment must pass for defendant; costs, £11 2s. WATT V. EOOLETOIT. Claim £24 7s 6d, hire of a schooner. Mr. Brookfield appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Wilson for the defendant. This caso had been partly heard at the previous sitting of the Court, when it wits adjourned in order to enable the defendant to amend hie pleading! by Betting out that the contract for the hire of the BChoouer was mode with Messrs. Harris and Laurie, and not with defendant. The defendant, examined by Mr. Wileon, deposed that the contract for the hire of the echooner on thirda hid been made by plaintiff with Harris and Laurie. An agreement had been come to between himeelf and Watt, by which the latter was to receive his share from Messrs. Harria and Laurie in timber, while defendant was to receive cash from the same firm. Had heard Mr. Harria say that if Watt would not consent to receive timber in payment the firm would hiro another schooner. • Christopher Atwell Harris, eenr., and junr., -were called, but did not appear. Mr. Wileon eitid the subpoena had been duly serveJ, and according to the 43rd section of tho Act, the witnesses were liable to a fine of £20 each. Defendant deposed to having sarved the summons upon Mr. Harris, eenr., and tendered the expenses. Had also tenderod tho summons and money to Mr. Harria, juur., who had refused them. His Honor ordered that the full penalty should be inflicted, the required witnesses to be served with notice to appear on a future day for the purpose of showing cause why tho penalty Bhould not be inflicted. A propoeal was made at this stage to adjourn the oase until next Court day defendant to pay costs, and to find security for the amount of the claim within 2-i hours. Defendant, however, wae uncertain whether or not he could obtain the required security, and the case was accordingly proceeded with. Henry B. Morton, formerly book-keoper to Harris and Laurio, doposed that an account had been opened up between Harris and Laurie and tho plaintiff Watt on the day that the conversation deposed to by the defendant wae held. In that account Watt was represented as receiving his share of the proceeds Of the vessel. On one occasion plaintiff called and inquired what was due to him, and was told £22 2s 2d. On another occasion plaintiff aaid he woold take timber when he wanted it, in lieu of money. Plaintiff, recalled, stated that he never at any time naHe an agreement with Harris and Laurie to charier the Wave, and never at any time authorised them to open an account with him. Never authorised thorn to piy anything to Kggleion, and to place the balance to hie own credit. Had taken timber in payment of certain bills. Henry B. Morton, recalled, deposed, that the defendant never had any account with Harris & Laurie other than that arising out of the hire of the echooner. The learned counsel on either side having addressed the Court, ,-«•«. His Honor gave judgment for plaintifl. BUBSSON T. HEROK. Claim £24, rent; £1015s hud boen paid into Court. Mr. Heeketh iippeared for plaintiff; Mr. Brookfield for defendant. < ~,.., In cross-examination, plaintiff admitted thatttere was a sum of £17 for which he had not given the defendant credit. The whole question at issue appeared to be a matter of account. His Honor reserved judgment, leave being grante 1 to plaintiff to take out of Court tl.e sum paid in. CASES ADJOURNED. Lawlers v. Cavon, £29 12s (to 10th February), Mr* Macdonald appeared for plaintiff; Percival v. Stevens, £33 8i ; Same v. St. John, £88 2s 7d.