Magistrate's Court.

Woodville Examiner, Volume XIII, Issue 2318, 11 January 1895, Page 2

Magistrate's Court.

Woodville, 10th January. (Before E. L. Stanford, Esq., S.M.)

Judgment was given for the plaintiffs in the following cases:—Haggen & Co. v. Thos. Patterson (Mr Burnett for plaintiffs). Claim, LI 10s ; costs, 6s.— A. Sandel v. Mrs Hum te Hairo. Claim, LI ss; costs, LI 0s 6d.—Same v. James Whiteford. Claim, L2"7s ; costs, 15s.— McDonald Bros. v. Alex. Gordon (Mr Gothard for plaintiffs). Claim, L 3 7s sd; costs, 13s. i H. D. Davenport v. James Curry.— Adjourned until February 14th. Peter Martin v. John Scott.—Mr Macloskey for plaintiff.—This case was an adjourned one, and owing to the nonappearance of the parties was further adjourned until February 14th. Peter Schranka v. John Francis. — Mr Burnett for judgment creditor.— Claim, L 3 10s, amount of judgment summons.—On being examined, defendant stated that at present he had no offer to make, but as he was going to work on the line ho would be able to offer something in settlement ere long. —The case was accordingly adjourned for three months (April sittings). T. H. Phillips v. J. Mortensen & Co. and O. Christiansen. —Application for attachmen t order.—Mr Burnett for pi aintiff, Mr Tosswill for defendant Christiansen.—ln this case the attachment order was applied for on a sum for which judgment had been obtained.—An order was granted for LlO 15s 6d, Court costs 4s, plaintiff's costs LI If, and costs allowed Christiansen's solicitor 10s 6d. F. Burbush v. same.—Mr Gothard for plaintiff, Mr Tosswill for defendant Christiansen.—Application for attachment order for L9l 12s 4d against the monies now in Mr TosswilPs hands.— Order was granted for the sum applied for, together with plaintiffs costs L2 2s, Court costs 4s, and Christiansen's solicitor was allowed a fee of LI Is. The Court then adjourned.