RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume I, Issue 131, 10 June 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

(Before-Tlwmas-Beckham, Esq., R.M-.) Action eoh Detenue. !M.aiv ßHA^:^ia Pl , o^Hr.i Judgment was given in this case, which iiadj been brought for "fhe~restoration of certain! Nonsuited. / *if»'"u¥t4'rolWb^s ] To' set Wiitf %rJ_WB_& ' Wilson y. Jones. —Judgment set aside.! 'Qbldon -Crowi-'Ette-riaM CriM.C.T'l'Ttegda^.! —Application refused. <_£.Bi.&un l^i'Str-yKb^t.^ETltrE-.^117 I)l'", h!° Unsatisfied judgment ot the Court, £9 13s.1 -WHS? W_>nk 1(for _ilalh_in*'M^, _foy fb^'attfeha-j ant. ! .oi b'ihiioJJu feiab-iO t.

John Moore Perrier deposed : I have.filed a declaration of insolvency in the Supreme Court and am at present under its protection, having been adjudged a bankrupt. Notice of this has been published. Case adjourned for production of notices of insolvency. Judgments fobPiaintiffs.

Macfarlane v. Wright, money lent, £5; Newman and Ewen v. Loveden. goods, £8 16s j Taylor v. Singer, board, £_ 4s 6d; Dillon; v. Mullin, for returning of a bppk, value £l|08; Porter and Co. v. Fernand*iis|.£5 12s 4d. } Burst and Co. v. Carpenter, £8 29 l*. ftp.. M-. ______ Depended Cams. W; ,'.'/,

''" New,Zealaud Gold Mmmg1 Cojhr. ; Book#, <!alls.*M^. Rees for plainW.* M^iMcOm-mick for defendant pleaded that he wasv'hot">p_hare-». hofdet, //>- sM- '•> Mj v Judgment reserved till next Court day. •- "* »oßTH'"isi.Ain> G-.ar.o. v. nathan. Aotion brought by the liquidator for re•covery of _WST m*1»ms*Mmmam" m ■—■—' T—" Mr. Hesketh for plaintiff; Mr. Wynn and Mr. MacCormick for defendant.

Defence: The company is not in liquidation. Objectidff,#«» R-'ai-ed! by'counsel-for defendant that the company had not sufficient assets to pay costs Of 'adverse judgment ■'. 4>uV such ability was proved' by-Mr. fl/Hi 1/Usk, Official Liquidator, who also testified to his having--beenjappointed liquidator ;at one extraordinary meeting pf shareholders, and confirmed by another | and that he had forwarded notice in due 'form for" publication in the Gazette.at Wellington.', .He had not yet re-ceived-a:cop_f of the Gazette/ ■:■.._. '"' The Court held that the produc|;ibn;,of the Gazette was a necessity, and gavei-M*. Hesketh a nonsuit. ' f'-

In a similar case by the same company v, Shove, in. the' absence of the same evidence (the Gazette), a nonsuit also was accepted; ' j Court adjourned for half-an-hour.,: i• I These to be placed, the first c^ses in the JR. M Court .-:•:,.•'