DISTRICT COURT.—Monday.

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 425, 22 May 1871, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.—Monday.

[Before Thomas Beekhani, Esq., District Judge.] The usual fortnightly sitting of this Court was held to-day. "* - McAethur and Sheea v. Lord Ragi^n Gold Mining- Com pan?.—This was a petition to wind up ; there was a further petition from a creditor named Sarnie.- The plaintiffs had attached certain judgment debts in Supreme Court. —His Honor inquired why there should be a doiible petition. The effect would be double costs.—Mr. Lusk applied for the costs of previous hearing.—His Honor said these companies, in his opinion, had suffered pretty smartly already. He would grant the order, but would leave the question of costs in abeyance. The Same v. The Goiden Biook Gold Minings Company.—This was a similar application, which was decided in a similar manner. Cocheane v. Shooting- Star G. M. Co. — This was also a petition to wind up. There was no opposition, and the company was ordered to be wound up. Nash t. Btjgden.—This case stood over for argument upon the question whether, when a plaintiff accepts a nonsuit, he can amend his particulars for the purpose of a new action.— Mr. Hesketh said the learned counsel on the other side had gone to Coromandel, and asked for an adjournment. He would consent to the adjournment, but would still object to any further amendment of particuars. Hastie v. Henderson.—Claim, £70. Mr. Hesketh for the plaintiff; Mr. Russell for the defendant. —This was an action to recover a yacht called the Wonder. The facts of the case as disclosed in the evidence were that the plaintiff purchased the vessel from a person named Charles Simmons, for £60. Simmons was left in charge of the yacht until the plaintiff should return to Wainui, at the Wade, where he is a settler. Afterwards heard that the yacht was in possession of Mr. Henderson, who refused to give her up. —In crossexamination the witness said the vessel had been built by Carr, of Auckland, and that Simmons told him the boat was not twelve months old. Had lent Simmons various sums before the purchase, which formed part of the price. Some of this money was lent before the boat was in exitence. Witness heard that the vessel was seized by Mr. Holmes for a debt due by Simmons. Came to Auckland and found that Simmons was in prison. The boat was seized and sold by the Sheriff on the 21st of January, under a writ oiji.j'u., upon the suit of Holmes v. Simmons.—Charles Simmons, a fisherman, deposed that he sold the boat to Hastie, the plaintiff. The boat was built by Clare, and cost witness about £53. Wit ness received £20 from plaintiff when going to the Thames (before the boafe was built), £10 while in the Golden Harp, and other sums. Gave Hastie £15 on the completion of the purchase, which made up the £60. —The witness in his cross-examination said he had an interest in the Nonpareil with two other men. Remembered the Wonder being sold. Did not ask Mr. Copland to buy the boat in for him. Told Mr. Holmes that the boat (Wonder) was not his.— John Holmes (Holmes Brothers) said that he sued three persons—Simmons, Hodgson, and Jolly—and obtained judgment. The boat was sold to satisfy the judgment.—The case for the defendant turned upon the legal questions whether the document in this case, given as a receipt, came within the interpretation of " a bill of sale," und if that were allowed, | whether it should not be registered.—Mr. Hesketh relind upon the merits of the case. He denied that the receipt for the purchase money was in any respect like a bill of sale. This was a bona fide sale, and no notice was given to the plaintiff of any proceedings which would deprive him of the right to the goods he hud bought.—Judgment deferred. Judgments.—Tabb v. Dornwell, £7 18s; lionnington v. Rice, £28 ; Vance and Co. v. Igoe. .Adjourned.—Bitchie v. Jackmann.