Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image

DISTRICT COURT.—Monday, i 1 (Before his Honor Judge Beckham.) Judgments foe Plaintiffs. Read v. Baker.—Claim, £79 ; amount of certain dishonoured cheques, with interest. Benstead v. Hill.—Claim, £43 ; monej g had. Cohen v. Eicke. - Claim, £2512s 6d ; money lent, and interest. ■ Richards v. Auckland Consolidated Gold m Mining Company. -Claim £6 9s ; goods sold and delivered. Hesketh v. Clement and others,—Claim £52 14s 2d ; for professional services. Kissling v. Bennett.—Claim, £47 6s ; for repairs and alterations made at the Symonds- j street Music Hall; and £4 4a>, costs of arbitration. Adjournments. Superintendent v. Johnson, —Until next Court day. - ■ Ashley Gold Mining Company v. J. B. Russell. —Until next Court day. Pride of Parnell G-old Mining Company v. Hales.—Until next Court day, to file a defence. Owen & Graham v. Yeale.—This cause was ordered to be placed on the bottom of the defeuded list. The Court would then determine what action was to be taken, as to adjournment or not. I APPLICATION FOR AN OKDER TO WIND UP A | GOLD MINING COMPANY. Mr. Weston applied for an order for the winding up of the Golden Gate Gold Mining Company, forthwith, at the suit of Fraser and Tinne, creditors in the sum of £231135. Due notice of intention to apply had been given 1 under the provisions of the Gold Mining I Companies Limited Liability Act, 1865, and I the Amended Act, 1869. DEFENDED OASES. Brunkard v. Lupton, damages. Mr. MacCormick for plaintiff; Mr. Richmond for defendant. A jun had been summoned to (ry this case, but owing to an amicable arrangement having been in ado between the legal advisers for their clients, the jury was dismissed, and the case was struck out. Three jurymen who were absent when called on the last Court day, gave various ex- i cuses for non-attendance. One of them wai fined 40s, and the other two were ordered to make affidavit of the reasons, which were held 1 by the Court to be satisfactory, in which case their fines would be remitted. A juror applied for payment for the two days he had been in attendance. His Honor said that he had no power to aiake any order for expenses where jurors had not been I sworn. [Left sitting.]

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS18700328.2.14

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Auckland Star, Volume I, Issue 68, 28 March 1870, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
371

Untitled Auckland Star, Volume I, Issue 68, 28 March 1870, Page 2

Untitled Auckland Star, Volume I, Issue 68, 28 March 1870, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert