DISTRICT COURT.—Tuesday.

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 379, 28 March 1871, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.—Tuesday.

[Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., District

Judge.]

The Court resumed at half-past ten o'clock this morning.

Neil v. McKenzie.—This case was heard yesterday, when the Court reserved judgment, which was now given for the plaintiff for the sum of £9 93.

Smale v. Loed Rag-lan G-oid Mining- I Company.—This wa9 an application which was made on the previous day for a re-hear-ing, ■which, the Court now declined to grant, observing that sufficient grounds for such a proceeding had not been shown

Peed. Bugden v. William Nash.—Claim, £99 10a. Mr. Rees for the plaintiff; Mr. Hesketh for the defence. Some preliminary discussion took piace on the informality of the bill of particulars, and a nonsuit was recorded on this ground, in order that the particulars might be amended.

Howel/I, v. Lotus.—Claim £25, for tho wrongful conversion of a boat. —Mr. Hesketh

for the plaintiff; Mr. Rees for the defence.— The case was a dispute between two fishermen. The plaintiff alleged that he entrusted the boat to the defendant to sell at not less a price than £25, and that it was sold for £12, out of which the defendant offered £1 10s., alleging that the rest was swallowed up for expensesand money lent. This amountthe plaintiff refused to take, and now sued for the £35. The defence was that there was no agreement as to the price, that the boat was to be sold —that after being entrusted to the defendant ib was a good deal used by the plaintiff, and that ultimately it was sold for more than its value. The sum of £1 10s. was paid into Court, which, after deducting the expenses and money lent by him to the plaintiff, the defendant alleged was all that was fairly due to the plaintiff.— A number of witnesses were examined on both sides.