Defended Cases.

Thames Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 5341, 5 March 1886, Page 2

Defended Cases.

E. Wiseman v. Haora Tapai, claim £6, goods supplied.—Pininfiff stated that during the sitting of the Lands Court defendant had ordered a suit of clothes, and desired to take them away without payment. This ho would not allow him to do, and the clothes were therefore thrown on his (plaintiff's) hands.—Defendant admitted ordering the suit of clothes, but said it had been arranged that they should be finished in a week. As they were not ready at the agreed time, witness told plaintiff not to proceed further with the making of the clothes.—Plaintiff was non«suited.

A. Mackay r. Little Helen GhM. Co., Thos. J. Allen, and Franz Scherff, claim £17 10s, wages.—Mr Miller appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Seherff represented the Company.—The defendant Allen had paid £2 16s into Court in settlement of his share of the liability.—Alexander Mackay stated that be took up the claim about 12 months ago, in which Scherff and Allen became interested about September last; as they received 15C0 shares each for*floatipK the company. Saw the two defendants in Auckland about September, when he recei»ed in structioDs from them to commence work, and take out a crushing. Went on work ing, and had been paid up to December 22nd, but the amount due up to the 11th February was still owing, and formed the subject of the present action. Had received no others instructions than those of fccherff and Allen to start work. The amount claimed was certainly due by either the two defendants or the company.—To Mr Scherff: Received the letter (press copy read) returning to him the transfer of 1000 shares, and stating that the company bad no funds in hand, and therefore he was only to take out a couple of tons' of quartz as a crushing. Had not received any instructions to sus pend operations,—Cornelius Morris stated that he bad been engaged by Mackay to work in the Little Helen claim, and bad been paid by the company.—Thos. Ja». Allen stated that he was one of the directors of the company, but nerer acted on their behalf so far as the working of the mine was concerned. Had authorised Mackay to take out fire tons of quartz for crushing, and he had paid £2 16s into Court for the purpose of defraying the cost—After hearing the evidence of Mr Scherff, judgment was given against the Little Helen Co. in favor of plaintiff far £7 48, in addition to the amount paid into. Court, together with costs amounting to £4 8s 4d. Burnett v. Corner, claim £10, being

the amount won by plaintiff's horse in the Kirikiri Eaces. —Mr Lush appeared for plaintiff and Mr Miller for the defendant. Mr Lush stated that Mr Comer was the treasurer and stakeholder of the Kirikiri

Eaces, which ;toojc place on the 29th January last, and at which plaintiff's horse Penguin won the Hurdle race. A protest was lodged, which was a frivolous one, but was allowed by the Committee which was not a proper Committee, as he would show. Mr Lush called Mr Burton, licensed yictualler, who testified to his being the judge at the "races, and that tho horse Penguin was the first to pass the post in the Hurdle Bace.— After other evidence at some length, judgment was .given for defendant, with costs £1 12s. The Court then rose.