RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 8539, 6 July 1889, Page 6 (Supplement)

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Fbiday, July 5. (Before Mr E. H. Carew, R.M.)

Judgment waa given for plaintiffs, wHh costs, in the following undefended eases:—G. Latimer v. T. Whelan. claim £6 11s, on a dishonoured eheqae; D. Benjamin and, Co. v. W. G. Urqubart, claim £27 69 6d, on dishonoured promiaBory notes; Stewart and Holmes v. Andie Wicklaad, claim £2 2s for professional services rendered.

W. Imrie v. J. Smith.—Claim 18s, for liquor supplied.—Mr Joel appeared for the plaintiff.— The defendant did not appear, but it seemed that he had paid 17s to the plaintiff since the summons was taken out.—From tno evidence given by tho plaintiff, it appeared that he was a hotelkeeper, and had sold a number of bottles of liquor to tho defendant which were taken away from the hotel.—His Worship gave judgment for la and costs, the liquor not having been consumed on the premises.

J. Smith v. W. J. Stephen.—Claim £28 8.1, on a judgment summons.—Mr James appeared for the plaintiff.—After defendant had given evidence as to his means, the case was dismissed.

K. J. Bryant v. A. Allen.—Claim £11 15s on a judgment summons.—Mr Moaat appeired for the plaintiff.—After evidence, an order was made for the payment of the amount claimed, with costs; £6 to be paid forthwith, £3 on the Ist of September, and £3 on the Ist of November ; in default, 14 days' imprisonment.

J. Johnson v. G. Bmith.—Mr J. Macgregor appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Stamper for the defendant. —In this o»so the plaintiff said that he had agrersd with tho defendant to exchange horses. He gave the defendant £1 to boot on the understanding that he should he have the right within a reawnable timn to retarn the defendant's horse and get back hin horse together with the £1 paid to the defendant. He had returned the defendant's horso and demanded tho return of bis horse and the £1. but tho defendant had refused to return both tho horse and the monny. Thn plaintiff, therefore, claimed to re<:over possession of tho horflß or £9, its value, and tho i<udi of £I.—His Worship K nvn judgment for £1 nnd costs, mid ordered the defendant to re'mrn ths horse forthwith, or pay £9, the value of the came.

A-. ,howlD« the Rrwt improvement which blis tft^er.nlaoe in the f«rniinK Industry In Sdnthlaiid, It msiTbi-nentlonodttiatusKfe at auction was made lng to tlie",^ Zealand Agricultural Company, nefr « ™«>.ii e .t nn!.* 6 prlce P"r aore for the land being 18s, ■wmuclOniL y(?Ilr „ an aTerage of about g » perßorewouldi been probab i y obtalned for th same land. Inat t( f thß re £ fc °