MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11402, 20 April 1899, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

WEnsHsn.ir. April 19. (Before Mr K. H. Carew, S.M.)David Baxter v. James Honley (Balclutha). —Claim- £19 16s 5d en a judgment summons.— The Hon. J. Macfii-etfor appeared for the plamtiff. and examined defendant as to his nißiuiK.—Defendant gaye lengthy evidence as to his lheans, and stateci inter alia thai, he was :< director in a dredging- company' called the Biiluintlia Dredging Company, carrying on i i/rmraiions iti Tnapoka FJat. He had put ■ £200 into the dredge, and two or threes clays ;-.K>> had signed, as a director of the company. | a bill to lha bank for £300. He did not know i what the shares wore worth. After further | questions had been pur. h>'s Worship said that defendant had answered the questions very rai-i-atisfaelnrily. nnd on that ground alone plaintiff was entitled to an order. Hip Worship j added that he noticed the account was mostly for whisky—November 28, sgal; December 5. I sgal; December 10, sgal; December 9. sgal— j raid tins, in a prohibition district. —Defendant j would be ordered to pay ihe amount ohimnd. with costs, on May 1, in defaidt three, weeks.' imprisonment. That wo:ilu give defendant a:i ! opportunity of realising on his dredging I j Judgment for the plaintiff with costs was I given in e.-ic-h of tin; fi/llouiug eases:—Edward ' Aldredy. John Wollmjn (Leo Stream), claim i £2 Is 3d for a bride's cuke and goods supplied ! The. nnncdin and Kaikorai Tram Company v. j A. L. Tlayward.(RoKlyn), claim £M 12s"6d, j calls due on shares. I Holder and Co. v. Fred. Bremner.—Claim I £25 10s on a .judgment summons.—Mr Solomon appeared for plaintiff, and Mv Adams for j defendant.—Defendant gave evidence as to I ins means, and stated that the debt for which | the present case was noneerned was for a billwhich he had backed. He had been paying off his other debts, which amounted to about £25.—1n reply to Mr Adams, defendant stated | (hat he had made, himself liable to the extent of gome £200, including the present amount, for debts he had guaranteed. Hie friends wore arranging for a composition in respect of j these.—His "Worship said that there was no I evidence of means or anility to nay ; the case i would be dismissed. ' i John S." Hunter (trading as A. Hunter and ! Son) v. A. F. Spenec—Chum £7 3? 3d on :, ! judgment summons.—Mr Moore appeared for i plaintiff, and defendant, who did not a(;ne,i>\ j was ordered to pay £5 Sa 3d still due, with costs. (10s), on May 1, in default seven days' imprisonment. I

William Lloyd v. .Samuel Golston.-Cla.im £25 for alleged assault and battery.—Mr Chapman appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Hanlon for defendant. This partly-heard ease was resumed.—Dr Coughlroy was called, and slated that tho wound on plaintiff's head, as described by Dr Brown, might possibly have been caused by tho blow of a. hammer; but not probably ; blows from a hammer such as described by paintiff would have, in witness's wound. ' He would also have expected the'hal to havo been injured. It was more probable that such a. wound would have been caused by .1 fall against tho broken window, or part (if a frame. This concluded the casci—Hi» Worship intimated that ho would give his decision on Friday.

Kobert. Millar (Port Chalmers) v. Chae. Goorgcson.—Claim £1 15s, balance of account duo for material supplied and work done.— Mr Hewitt appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Moore for defendant.—Judgment waß , given for defendant, without costs.