RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.—Yesterday.

Thames Advertiser, Volume IX, Issue 2456, 28 October 1876, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.— Yesterday.

(Before W. fitlffili, Esq,, 15,31.) Judgment foe Plaintiffs.—®. Binney v. Henry Donkin, claim £14 6s 6d, amount of a promissory note, Mr Macdonald for plaintiff. Judgment for tko amount and costs, £215s.—G. McOaul v. J! E. Banks, claim £319s Gd. Judgment, with costs. Immediate execution granted.—W. H. Jacobs r. J. E. Banks, claim £10 Is; balance of account. Judgment, with costs, £1 9s.—Brown, Campbell, and Co. v. John Lynch, claim £3912s 6d, for goods supplied Mr Macdonald for plaintiffs. The debt was_ proved by Mr Hogg, and judgment was given for amount and costs, £4 18s.—W. Simav. Joshua Jackson, claim £5, money lent. Judgment for the amount and costs, £I,—E. ■McDonnell v. Thomas McCarthy, claim .£7 4s 3d. Judgment for the amount and costs, 235.-W. Hose r. Pereka te Putu, claim £22 17s, amount of a dishonored order. Mr Macdonald for plaintiff.— Do, v. Hopihana, £7 5s 6d. Do. v. Te Wano te Paura, £3155. Do. v. Eata Paka, £12 13s. Do, v. Hara Tarenui, £11 8s 3d. Do. v. Hapi Bewi, £8 Is. Do. v. Biki Paka, £29 lis 9d. Judgment in each case was passed, with two years' interest added, and costs. Judgment Summons.—H. H. Bherens v. Thomas McCarthy, claim £7 163 Id, amount of a judgment. Mr Brasseyfor the plaintiff. Defendant was examined. The judgment was obtained against him for cutting firewood. He had sold the firewood, but had not paid Bherens. It went to pay other debts. He proposed to pay the debt at the rato of Is a week. His Worship made an order that he pay at 5s a week, commencing on the 4th November; and failing payment, to undergo one month's imprisonment in Mount Eden Gaol.—John H. Bryan v. Frederick Clark, claim £2 63, amount of an unsatisfied judgment. Defendant was oxaminod. He had only done eight weeks'work for the last twelve months, and he had a family. He was willing to pay if he had work. Plaintiff said he had seen the defendant paid at the Borough Council offices, and when he asked him for a part payment lie hooted at him. The defendant ,made a long rambling statement of personal woes and grievances against the New Zealand Government for bringing bim to this country, &a. The Magistrate said that it was a pity he did not stay at home; the country would be better without people such as him, who had so much to say, and did so littlo work. No order made.

W. Djeeble v. W. ADAMS.—This was a claim to recover £218s, a proportion of a judgment obtained, which Mr Deeble, who was one, of the party of four, bad to satisfy.—Mv Brassey for plaintiff, and Mr Macdonald for the defendant,—W. Adams admitted that bo was a shareholder in the McCormiek's Bank, but he abandoned his interest on the 19lh of August* and gave Mr Quinlivan notice that he would not be responsible for any carting after that. Ho was not at the battery nor at the claim after that debt. The reason why he abandoned it was that McCormick and himself had a disagree.

ment. He did not remember sending his son to watch the. crushing. Ho sent him to the battery to look after another crushing. ■ If the crushing had turned out profitable he would not have elaimed his proportion.—Cross-examined: He gave notice to his mates, and to Quinlivan, that he would incur no more liability, and he paid Quinlivan £1 lis 3d for /five .;; loads, for which all the shareholders were liable up to the 18th, in order to close up the account.—John Quinlivan deposed that the carting was done for the company the same as the rest. McCormick.. and Adams's son,instructed him. to do ;•; the carting, and when Adams told him to do no more on his account ; he paid him for tho. .five loads.—Mr Adams re-called: He could not say whether the proceeds of the five loads were handed to him. ; Ho did not remember.—James McCormick was called. He explained that the carting was partly from the Third Chance and partly from McCormick's Bank. There was only one , ; of the five loads out of McCormick's" '- Bank. Mr Deeble was not a shareholder in the Third Chance. Adams did not tell him on the claim that he would give up Jus share.—Cross-examined: Witness,; put on a man to work the defendant's share after defendant had taken away his.,.man. He had not defendant's authority. <. fordoing so. The man has never been paid. He is now working for himself on the same ground. It was re-pegged out about a week after. Mr Adams had abandoned his share in the Warden's office.—Mr Burgess said that he gave written notice on the 2nd September that \ he had abandoned the share, on the 2<ltk : of August'. He produced the' notice of abandonment. William Deeble abandoned his share on the 4th September.— William Deeble, plaintiff, deposed that Adams had never at any time given him notice that he would not be responsible fcr any debts of the partnership.—Cross-" examined: He understood that he hacl surrendered his interest prior to'the/ crushing, and told Adams and McCor-' mick he would .clear out of it. He thought then he was clear of it, but he found his mistake last Court day, when judgment was given against him.—Judgment was given for the plaintiff for £2 18s, and costs £2145. • ■"