LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIII, Issue 4666, 27 October 1876, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. «. —__«».»_.. Tmuksday. • „ rßWore-R. C. B*rßlow.-Eiq.,lLire~—- - i sitting of this Court wasLheld this:morning, and _the fdUowine business disposed of : ; Undefended .'Oasis (Judgment job PLAiNnrre>.-John William Hoare v. John °, m ° n » ..<£>=» *25.&s 7d, costs £1 l 7s ; *\ B n<*geman and John Hinton, ,£2 14s 6d eosts 9s Hamilton v. 'S^^p***.-, 6 **!S.-Smwl JTicheM v. iidmund Combes (promissory note), £35 Is 9d. Adjourned.—Faulder v. Grace; £83 74 - Sheppard v. Walker, £4 19s lOd; M. Jorfesand Co. v. Cottis, £1219s Bd.

. Defended Cases; j Grattan y. Lloyd.—Claim £25. Mr T4iorne foj<-the plaintiff, Mr. James Russell I for the defendant.—This -was- an action to | recover upon a promissory 'note given by the j defendant to the plaintiff for the above .amount. The defence "was that no conj sideration was received for the bill, which was i given purely for the. accommodation of the plaintiff* To this defence the plaintiff replied that the consideration for the bill was board and lodging. The defendant responded that he had paid for his board and lodging had from the plaintiff in advance, and was never indebted to him on that account. The plaintiff, who was formerly ahotelkeeper, at the North : Shore, deposed that the plaintiff- lived at his house at' the North Shore, and afterwards at Remuera. During the time the defendant" "lived in his house at the .North Shore, the defendant was in comparatively straitened circumstances. When plaintiff removed t» Remuera, the defendant came to live with him, but it was an understanding between them that the defendant should pay off the debt due for board and lodging at the North Shore. The defendant had some allowance, which he received through the Bank of Australasia. . Defendant. owed him about £30 when leaving the North Shore. His allowance was £5 a month, and he was in. expec r tation of receiving a large sum, the proceeds of a legacy. The defendant gave witness the promissory note in satisfaction of the North Shore debt. The defendant was examined, and swore positively that he gave the bill to the plaintiff for his accommodation after he had been burnt out of his house at the North Shore. The plaintiff thanked the witness. It was not true that h8 owed the plaintiff Shore. He nsed to pay to. the plaintiff £10 and £5, and let it run out. The 'plaintiff informed witnesfa -tbafc-they were all clear, and while at Kemuera he gave plaintiff, a cheque for £5 every month, for his board and lodging while El that place. The defendant swore in the most positive manner that he_was not indebted to the plaintiff, and received no consideration for the-buXT'.His "Worship sr.id, upon consideration op" the facts deposed to, his judgment must be for the plaintiff. Wood y. Johnson.—Claim, £2. This was an action to recover for services to the defendant's wife as midwife'. . The plaintiff deposed to the nature of a verbal agreement between~hereelfand"-the~dEfemiaut'B wife. The defence was that the. defendant was in difficulties at the time, and consented to take what the defendant could give her. He gave her all he was able, 30s, and she seemed satisfied. Judgment for plaintiff for 20s, and coßts 9s.