RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume I, Issue 94, 28 April 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, Apjait 28. ..-. >. (Before T. Beckhain, Esq., R.MO ' ;^J Judgment was given for plaintiffin tha-wfe of Hayer v. Dalton. IHMIGBATION BONDS. Superintendent v. Bush and an otter claim £14; Superintendent v. Doyle, claim £15 ; Superintendent t. Richard Brien claim £6. : '■. '■'Vj.' Judgment was given for plaintiff in each of the above eases. JUDGMENT FOE PLAINTIFF.--' Seteel v. Dyer. , il Defended Cases, russell v. millab. - >>1 This was air an action upon the title certain premises. No title wasset up by the defendant. Herbert Ashton, a land agent, said lie knew the premises which was the subject of the action. The value of them was about 5g a week, £13 a year. Possession was ordered to be, giyan. to plaintiff and costs paid by the defendant..: The defendant was asked whether hp^ntd give up possession upon getting noticeT^Se said he would give up possession next day. HtTEST & CO. V. MASEFIELD. l Claim £7 10s. Mr. Wynn for plaintiff, and Mr. jyJB. Russell for the defendant. This was an action to recover the value of a quantity of bags lent to the defendant. There had been some kiud of arrangement between the parties by which defendant was to supply a quantity of gum to the plaintiif. In consequence, however, of a fall in the price of gum, and there being no valid contract between the parties the arrangement fell through.' 'The bags had been supplied to defendant ,tq'hold the gum. When the arrangement fell'through defendant had ]00 bags belonging to the plaintiff. Defendant however offered to pay for 60 bags. The bags were put on board the Gemini according to the defendant's order. Cross examined by Mr. Russell: I oannot say whether the gum was to be supplied at less than £20 a ton. When the defendant offered to pay for 60 bags, demand was made for the hundred with whicli he had been supplied. Eighteenpence a sack is a fair price per sack. The master of the Gemini proved the delivery of the sacks put on board the s.s. Gemini to Deacon, at the Riverhead_ Hotel. Cross-examined: Could not deliver them to the defendant, as he was a hundred milea away at the time. Judgment was given for the plaintiff. ... ' Mr. Russell said there were rather nice points of law in the .case, and hoped the Court would allow him to appeal. His Worship said that if the learned gen» tleinan and his client, desired such an indul* gence, they might .have it. BAND OP HOPE G. M. CO. T. HAT. ; Mr. Russoll for plaintiff, Mr. Rees for defendant. This was an action to recover calls. The defence was that the calls were not made in accordance with the requirements of. the.Aetj that they were not made by properly, appointed persons ; that they were not made for proper purposes ; thit such calls were sued for in an improper manner;, that the meetings at which the calls were made,, were not properly held. : ■ - ■' . Mr. Rees argued that the case should-be sued by information before,two justices. .'.,• His Worship thought £h» Court had juriidiction. Robert Lusk, legal manager of the Band of Hope Gold Mining Company, produced the certificate of information of the company. Mr. Rees contended that the form of certificate was bad. j "J™. The objection was overruled. - '■■}■■'-!: \ ' Witness: The defendant held a promoters scrip, each of which represents thirty share* to the company. At a meetiug held on the 20th of April there was a majority in number and value of shareholders present The rules were adopted at that meeting. Mr. Rees pointed out that there was »- memorandum of agreement, dated the lOfch of June, to which the rules ; ,were annexed. Rules made before that date could not bind the parties to the agreement. - '.■—. Mr. H. Lusk said the rules and the .memorandum were wholly distinct and separate. The witness (to the Courtji The rules handed in are the same that were made and adopted on the 20th of April. . • . Mr- Rees: But that deed must have been signed on the 10th of June. They could only have effect from the time tha agreement;, vi respect of them was executed. . ,;. ■ Witness : The first call was made by we directors on the 14th of June. Tho minutes of the meeting were reduced to writing. *-be amount of the call made vias Is. per share! tho call was -advertised. ' I produce tM advertisement in which the%na.lung of the can was notified to the shareholders, (Left sitting.) J