BESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.-Yesterday.

Thames Advertiser, Volume XI, Issue 3182, 30 November 1878, Page 3

BESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.-Yesterday.

(Before W. Fraseu, Esq,, K.JI.)

Judgments fob Plaintiffs.—Yaughan v. Barnett: claim £7, board and residence; costs 23s.—Stone Bros. v. Black Angel Gr,M. Company: claim £118s Id, goods; costs £3 Is 6d.—D. Miller v. J. McCarthy: claim £6 10s. There was no appearance of defendant. Plaintiff said that the defendant had agreed to pay 5s and costs, which he was willing to accept. —His Worship made an order that defendant pay 5s a week until the debt is paid, failing which to be imprisoned for one month. DEFENDED CASE. W. H. Taipabi v. F. Souteh.—This was an action for £5 damages, by defendant's horse.—Mr Miller appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Dodd for defendant.— Evidence having been heard, judgment was given for plaintiff for Is and costs, £115s.

Fitten v. Bullock and Allen.— Last court day Mr Dodd applied for a re-hearing of this case, on the ground that before judgment had been given, Allen, one of the defendants, admitted to several persons that Pitten was justly entitled to wages; whilst a few hours afterwards ho denied in court that he and his partner had promised to pay him any money. His "Worship said ho would not grant a re-hearing, but call upon defendants to show cause why a new trial should not be granted.—Three affidavits were read yesterday, two being from the defendants, and the other from CarnoH, an assistant, In Bullock's and Allen's affidavits it was denied that any promise had been made to pay plaintiff, whilst Carnell's affidavit was to the effect that he had heard the plaintifi say that he was not going to be humbugged, as he did not receive any wages.—His Worship said he would re-hear the case on Priday nest, on condition that plaintiff deposited the sum of £310s, which would be about the costs of the trial, so that if defendants won the case they would be sure of their costß.— Mr Dodd said ho was satisfied and would comply with his Worship's order.