CIVIL CASES.

West Coast Times, Issue 1188, 14 July 1869, Page 2

CIVIL CASES.

Rees v. Docherty. — Mr Harvey, on behalf of the plaintiff applied that substitution of service might be accepted. The Magistrate said the application would be acceded to on an affidavit, setting forth the efforts made to serve upon the defendant, being put in.

Christian v. Spillcr. — This was a fraud summons, and the defendant did not appear, being out of town. Mr Harvey appeared for him, and asked for an adjournment until to-day, as Mr Spiller wished to say something about the claim. The Magistrate said the defendant could not go into the merits of a case upon a fraud summons. The case was adjourned. Cas*ius v. Sholtross. — Claim, £18 5s Bd. The defendant disputed £4 8s of the claim, on the ground that credit had not been given for kegs returned. Mr Cassius said he Avas not accustomed to take old kegs in payment of his account six months after the last transaction. If was proved that the defendant had received 17s worth of kegs, and had sent back £5. Judgment was given for the amount claimed, with costs.

Isidore Rothschild v. Adams.— Claim £14, damages for wrongful detention of a ring. Mr South appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Harvey appeared for the defendant. The plaintiff said that he was a jeweller. The defendant asked him to bring some rings to her house for her to look at. Pie did so, but the defendant did not like the look of them, but took a fancy to a diamond and emerald ring which was on his finger. He took it off, told her the price was £14, and she asked him to come back in an hour, and she would decide whether she would keep it. He did go back in an hour, but the defendant refused to give it up, saying that he had made a present of it to her. He went and got the aid of Detective Browne, but she sTill refused to give it up. In' answer to Mr Harvey, the plaintiff said that he had been closely intimate with the defendant. In a previous case he said he had been her " protector," but he only meant that she was under his protection at the Casino. Detective Browne stated that the defendant at first told him that she could not give up the ring, as she had passed it away; and then, on his going back a second time, she refused to give it tip. The defence was that the plaintiff had given the defendant the ring. He had promised it to her a long time before, and shortly after he had given it to her they qurrrelled, and he then demanded the ring. She refused to give it up, except through the Court. Judgment was given for the plaintifFfor the amount claimed, with costs, to be reduced to a shilling on the return of the ring. Matthiew v. Sweeney. — An adjournment in this case was granted until to-day. It was shown that 'he plaintiff had summoned a married woman, and he was tokl that a nonsuit would be claimed if the plaint was not amended.

The Court then adjourned until to-mor-row (this day) at eleven o'clock.