Untitled

Thames Star, Volume VI, Issue 1770, 4 September 1874, Page 3

In answer to His Worship, witness said, , he had kopt no books, but could have! ' brought persons who knew ho had lent ■the, money, but had not thought it wpujd "be necessary.■ .''-■• -■■*5; ■ r His Worship-said he had no sympathy with persons who lent money- to persons •who were " tapering off." Plaintiff said he had lent defendant ■ money /before to the extent of' £10, and thought he would pay this. • His Worship told him in taat case he would merely nonsuit him with costs, 'so th'ufc he' could produce his evidence "which would prove that ho-had, lent tho money, satisfactorily. ' CBICK V. KIKOBIMA. POTJTATABA — „ ', ; '1 ■ JUDGMENT. ! A claim of £26145, for rate*. ' JudgrMfckfia* reserved at last Court day, in oi;desflat His Worship might go to Auckland Wnspect the Statute JRoll. His Worship said that in this case-all matters had boen decided at last Court day: it had been agreed by all parties that the defendant was liable if the second vpartuof .the-iUfihways Act; 1874,"was found to be in operation. The plaintiff had produced one copy of the Act wherein ' the second part "was included; and the defendant had produced one with the second part omitted. ' He had reserved his decision therefore in order that he might seo. the.original roll and ascertain which was right.. He had seen it, and was happy to say that it was all right, judgment must go for the plaintiff with 'c.oits. ,The omission in the Act;had been rectified, and was, initialted by the Speaker. ' " Mr Macdonald mode some remarks on tho alteration of the Acts^' He considered it to be hia duty to his 'client ■ and the public—although the decision had tiken .the- direction, it had—to loudly protest against the course pursued by the Legislature in altering the roll. He had no hesitation in saying that tho roll had been' altered tampered and falsified, which was 1 most reprehensible. It had had the immediate effect of making his client liable, for what according to the roll he had not been liable. He stigmatised it as being most unjustifiable, and hoped the remarks which he-had felt called upon to make would reaqhtheears'of those in authority! through 1 Jthe'ordinary channels. . Adjotjened Cases. ! J. T. ,E. Kogan.' v. Golden .Barley /G.&JCo.—A claim of £17. 25., for pro- 1 fessional services. . j Henry Parslow t. J. Buchanan—a claim of , £50,: money had and received. His Worship said he would deier his de-, cision on this case' for another week. Two cases, W. H. Taipari and Eapana, Maungonui v. Oliver Grant—both for! rent —were adjourned by consent. Hppcraft, McCullough & Co. y. T. B. Cameron—Claim £2 19s. 6d.;for advetfthing. —-i __ ;