MAGISTRATE'S .COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11542, 30 September 1899, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S .COURT.

Feiday, * Septejimr '29. 0 ; (Before Mr E. H. Carew, S.M.)

Massey, Harris, and Cp. (for whom Mr W. C. MacGregor, instructed hy Mr Cook, appeared) v. AY. Richmond (Kongotea), claim £5 7s balance due oji a promissory note. '__.. B. Kobertson v; Wm. Uodds,.claim £i on .a judgment summons.—Mr Hewitt appeared for 'plaintiff, and after evidence as to„defendant's : means, the case was dismissed. 7 David Miller v. Ernest W. Haggatt, claim £1 Ss Id on a judgment siuuinons— Mr Wilkinson appeared for plaintiff, and after evidence as to defendant's means, the case was dismissed. Alexander Patterson and Alfred Howorth (Walton Park Coal Mine proprietors) v. James M'ltauglilan (Fairfield),.claim £2 for trespass."— Mr Allan appeared* for plaintiffs, and Mr Hanlon for defendant.—Judgment was given icr ss, and 18s costs.

' Thomas' Pollock v. William Pollock, claim , £20, "money lent.—Mr Wilkinson appeared for : plaintiff, aud Mr ..Barclay for defendant.—This ipartly-heaid case was resumed and concluded.— '.His Worship, in giving judgment, said.: It is "not disputed that plaintiff lent the money'to •defendant, but the defendant desires, to lake '•-advantage. of the , statute of limitations. The ■ money was lent some seven.or eight.years ago, rbut the plaintiffhas produced an.1.0.'0. signed ■by defendant not dated, and ho,-has sworn that 'it was given to him by his brother, not less than .; six* years ago.' Another brother, James' Pollock,: -■swore that he' was present when plaintiff and:.defendant went into the British Hotel' to axrange the matter, and when they came out '.plaintiff* showed them the-1.0.U., He. says that jwas long after the. plaintiff lent-the money. ,f He swears positively thatthis took place after \ July* 12, .1893, and 7 that it was in, Kov.ehib'er, 11893,.-but is; unable -to.give any reason, for Jfixing *on that month... Defendant: swears that Jhe gave.the 1.0. U. at.the-time he,received.the \ money, that is about eight . years , ago. _ The :case wasrnot a satisfactory, one, but. the .weight fof .evidence* is in.favour of .the 1.0. U. .having ■ been given* within six years, and, being an i acknowledgment in writing, takes tbe case out lof the statute. -Plaintiff admits receiving £5 in cash and 20s in goods;on account. Defendant's ; claim that he paid another sum of £5 is denied by plaintiff.—Judgment for -^14, with costs of ;court 21s; professional costs 265. :;-■'• ■• Henry Holmes v. (Miss) Jessie Clark.(-STorth-'EastTValley),- claim £1 Is* lid half-cost, of re-' pairing a boundary'fence.—Mr Hewitt appeared : for'-plaintiff; and .Mr Fraser for-,defendant.— After * evidence, judgment was* given for* .defeh-* ; daiitj "without-coats. .;. *" ;