LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 10412, 9 April 1897, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.-Thorsday. [Before Mr. H. W. Brabant, S.M.I

JUDOMESTS FOB PLAINTIFFS.—In the follow- ! ing cases His Worahip gave judgment for plaintiffs with costs:—S. J. Ambury (Mr. Gribbin) v. A. Wells, claim £1514 a 6il, coats £1 13s 6d; Brown, Campbell and Co. (Mr. ' Buddie) v. A. Welle, claim £9 18s 6d, costs £1 5a 6d; Scott Printing Co. (Mr. Hanua) v. Sine Lini; and Co., claim f> Oa 9il, costs £133 6(1; John Buchanan (Mr. Burton) v. J. Barrett, claim £2414s 6<l, costa £2175; F. Bollman (Mr. Gittos) v. M. O'Brieii, claim ISa 6d, costs Gs; E. S. Ryan (Mr. Gittos) v. Julia Percy, claim £3 3s, costs 8s; J. W-3e-man and Sons (Mr. Burton) v. D. A. Taylor, claim £6 2s lid, costs £13s6d; ifeile and Beule v. R. Jones, claim £7195, costs £1 19s 6d; J. Lawsou (Mr. McAlister) v. N. Dickey, chum £12 8s 6d, costs £110 a 6d; A. VV. Page (Mr. Gribbin) v. A. Welti, claim £29 Oβ 7d, costs £2175; Pan- aud luder v. Lincoln Gold Mining Company, claim £2116s 3d, costs £1 3s; A. Williams (Mr. Gittos) v. M. O'Brien, claim 17s, coats (is; J. Trenwith (Mr. Burton) t. Adams Bros., clnim £5 17a 6d, costs £1 83 6d; T. Varnom (Air. Haslett) v. T. Chaplin, claim £1 Bs, rent and possession of house, costs £1 17'; J. Ruddy (Mr. Burtoe) v. A. Cox, claim 9s Id, costs 8s; H. Kohn (Mr, (Burton) v. A. Cox, claim £2 2a, coats 13s; Wihgate and Co. v. J. McCready, claim £11 Is 4(1, costs £1 2s. • J. B. Graham v. H. Slowsian.—Claim £1 15s 6d, rent, etc., due. Judgment was given for the amount claimed, less ss, which plaintiff allowed defendant. C. H. HoopF.il v. J. CRONIN.-Claim, £2 Os sd, for bread supplied. Defendant said the bread was supplied to hit family without hil authority. His Worship said he mast surely keep his family in bread, and gave judgment for the amount claimed, with costs Hβ. . POLLAN, ABMITAOE AND Co. V. JOHK Brown.—ln this case the plaintiffs.claimed from the defendant the sum of £2 5s for buggy hire aud expenses of recovering the vehicle. Mr. Colbeck appeared for the plaintiffs. Ftom the evidence it appeared that in November of last Year the defendant and another hired a buggy from plaintiffs. In Onehunga the conveyance was left outside a hotel, while the defendant and companion went inside, aud when they came out .'again the buggy was missing. Subsequently it "was found on the road in Epsom. His Worahip aaid he thought the amount claimed rather high, as the buggy was recovered in'good order, and gave judgment for £1 153, with £112s costs. Mount Catherine Gold Minino Company v. A. RoBERTSOJJ.-Claim £4 5s 4d for calls due on shares in the company, alleged to be held by the defendant. Mr. Baxter conducted the case for the company) and Mr. Burton appeared tor the defendant/ Mr. Gray, the legal manager of the company, said 5000 shares were originally applied for by one A. Eccles, and subsequently upon his reqiest were distributed among certain of his brothers and the defendant (a brother-in-law). Before the brothers and defendant were placed on the register they Called at the company's office and complained that they had not received call notices, and said they had authorised A. Kecles to purchase shares for them. Afterward? they disputed their liability to pay calls. Mr. Burton applied for a nonsuit principally on the ground that the alleged transfer of shares from A. Eccles to defendant was not in accordance with the Act. His Worship reserved decision on the point and said be would prefer to hear the evidence. Defendant (an'attendant atthe Asylum) in his evidence aaid he did not authorise anyone to buy shares for him. He did not complain that he bad not received a call notice. Hβ remembered a conversation at the company's office when F. W. Eccles (one of the brothers) told Mr. Gray no one had authority to put their names down for shares. Frederick William ficcles, grain merchant, Auckland, also gave evidence. He remembered going to the company's office once, that was after he received a call notice. He went in company with defendant to object to the call. Hii Worship said he would give judgment the following week. t. Varnom v. D. Bbiggs.—Claim £2 9», rent due. Mr. Haalett appeared for the plaintiff, and defendant conducted his own cue. Defendant said his wife was liable for the rent Judgment was entered for the' amount with costs, and defendant was'allowed one month in which to pay.