DISTRICT COURT.—Thursday.

Auckland Star, Volume I, Issue 172, 28 July 1870, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.—Thursday.

(Before His Honor Judge Beckham.) An adjourned sitting was held, to-day, when the following business wss disposed of:— JUDGMENT. WILCOT V. HEYWOOD. Tliis was a claim of £38 against the Waitafcerei G-cld Mining Company. His Honor said that having considered the evidence in this case, he was of opinion that the defendant only acted as a servant, for he not only signs the document with his name, but he intimates in what capacity he signs it by placing after his name the words " legal manager," sliCKiU^ ck&tlv.. that he was the servant of the company. , ( Nonsuit recorded. y^•' GUIFFIST V. WHITE. This was a claim, of £50 against John Kbenezer Vvliito, for having wrongfully dis- | missed the plaintiff, who said he was employed !by the year, from the service without sufficient notice. His Honor iras of opinion that there was no yearly hiring. Nonsuit recorded. LEWIS BEOTHERS V. OGILVIE. Claim, £60. Mr. Wynn for the plaintiff. Mr. MacCormick for the defendant. This was an action to recover the above amount for the improper detention and conversion of certain goods. The inquiry, had it not been withdrawn, would have developed certain questions of law of considerable commercial importance. The facts are as follow : —A quantity of imported brandy was sold at pubic auction by Mr. Binney to Mr. S. 11. Meyers, who again sold to Messrs. Lewis Brothers. The brandy wns warehoused by the defendants, or in their name. Messrs. Lewis Brothers paid for the brandy. Certain matters occurred affecting the estate of Mr. Meyers, and Mr. Biuney requested Messrs. Ogilvie & Campbell not to deliver up the goods. But when the goods were sold to Messrs. Lewis they received the usual " bond warrants" as symbols of the transfer of the property to which they refarred. The question of law was, do these bond warrants operate as a transfer of the property to which they relate ? When the case was called upon, it appeared that only one of the defendants answered, viz., Mr. Hugh Campbell. Mr. MacCormack said : I do not represent i Mr. Ogilvie. I only appear for Mr. Campbell Mr. v/ynn : In that case we are entitled to judgment by default. lam quite willing to withdraw the case as against Mr. Campbell. Mr. MacCormick : You must withdraw the whole case, for I cannot allow my client to be put in peril, and perhaps subject to be brought here again. Mr. Wynn : The 88th rule distinctly states that the plaintiff may withdraw one or more causes of action, or one or more defendants if he sees fit.

His Honor: That is if the plaintiff will undertake to proceed no further against such defendant or defendants.

Mr. Wynn : Just so. We also summoned Mr. Ogilvie. If he do not appear on his subpoena as a witness, he should be called in the usual way. Mr. Ogilvio was called, but did not answer. Mr. Gabriel Lewis was examined, and deposed to the receipt of the bond warrants.

Judgment was given for the defendant in the case of Campbell, and for the plaintiff as against Ogilvie. Mr. Wynn: I think, considering all the circumstances, we are entitled to immediate execution.

His Honor believed the request was resonable, and granted immediate execution as against the defendant Ogilvie.