LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIII, Issue 4484, 28 March 1876, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

■ DISTRICT COURT.—Monday. [Before His Honor F. D. Fehton, Esq., District -•-•■■ Judge.] The ordinary bi-monthly sitting of this Court -was held this morning, and the following business disposed of :— Craig v. Te 0".-Claim, £96 2s 4d. The plaintiff, formerly a commission agent but now residing at the'TVairoa, sued the defendant, an aboriginal native, who also resides at tlie Wairoa, for the above amount. The defendant did uot appear, and judgment was given for the plaintiff, with costs.' ■ Light akd Wife t. Gudgeon. —This case, which was part heard, was withdrawn and was struck out of the list of cases accordingly. . ' ' " Dk Lias y.-Holmes Brothers.—Claim, £100.' The plaintiff was director of a theatrical company and the defendants were steamboat : proprietors. The action was brought to recover damages sustained in consequence of delay, &c. By mutual consent the dispute was referred, to arbitration, and Mr. Benjamin Tonks was,elected to act as arbitrator. The arbitrator: sent up his award, which was as follows:—For the plaintiff £11 15s, and £7 7s the.cost of the award. ""' ; . . :'; ."■'•

B. and H. Isaacs v. John Uj^derhill. — This case, the particulars of which have been already published, stood over for judgment. The facts were somewhat peculiar. Mr. Alfred Edward Isracs, in the capacity of agent' for Mr. Edward Perkins, who was out of the colony, put up certain furniture belonging to Perkins, aid which was in Underbill's house, for 'sale. Had the sale taken place, the goods would have been sold for cash ; but they were withdrawn, Underbill agreeing to give a sum for the whole lot. Mr. Isaacs agreed to take a promissory note from Underhill for the amount. The bill was handed over by Mr. A. E. Isaacs to hia firm, and placed to the credit of Perkins in their books. The present acl/ton was brought against Underhill for the amount of the promissory note so given. But Underhill claimed some rent from Perkins, and claimed to hold the goods as security for the rent; and he further claimed to set the rent due to him against the promissory Dote. A question arose whether, in the event of Perkins's return to the colony, his remedy might not be barred by a judgment for the plaintiff; and the learned Judge expressed a desire to examine Mr. Alfred Isaacs further on this point. Mr. Isaacs was again ex- , amined, and said Mr. Perkins, having received the amount as credited to him by the firm of E. and Bf. Isaacs, could incur no loso. J-dgment was given for the plaintiff accord-, ingly. - . ■.■'.. .: ■ Connedl v. Jones.—Claim, £35 19s Cd. This case had been struck out of the list for non-appearance on both.sides. But-there appeared to be some misapprehension between the parties, and the plaintiff: asked to have it reinstated. It appeared that the defendant sent a telegraphic message to the plaintiff, asking him to let the case stand over for a week, and that hie hoped to settle the matter. On the application of the plaintiff s counsel, the cause was reinstated. ■'■