RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 471, 14 July 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT

-: TTRIDAYr JUL^ iff ' Jj V (Before Thomas Beckham/ Esq.,'^Reiideiit Magistrate.) Tub usual Court for proof of small debts was held ; this morning, when the following business was disposed of:— - JUDQMENT POB- PIiAINTCWS:—Sa"wkiaS"V." Parker, £8 Bs. 6d. (board and residence) } Smales v. Howard, £3 19s. (rent of office) j Camp v. Bull, £2 ss. 6d.; King v. Keetleyi £1 10s. lid. I

Defended Causes—AramqATiON; fob Reheabing.—Williamson v. Carlisle.' )!This Was an action brought by the plaintiff as'Ca'rato^ of Intestate Estates against the defendant,1 and the^proceeding was in the estate of the. late Colonel Fraser, who died at Tauranga; The sum claimed was upon an 1.0. U. held by the Curator. The case had been heard before, and judgment given for tho plaintiff, but? .leave was reserved to move for a re-hearing, j Tfce defendant resided at Napier, and his evi-. dence in the first trial was taken in writing by the Clerk of the Court at Napier, by whom it waa sent to the Clerk of the' Court, at Auckland. By some accident this evidence was not read on the hearing This was urged as the ground for re-hearing.; The defendant's evidence was in effect, that he' never gave the 1.0. U. to Colonel Fraser out-j sid^ o£ Napier, and if such a document were^ given; it'was for "a gambling debt." —Mr. Brookfield, for the Curator, said that the evidence1 of the defendant was taken by commission, and the Clerk of the Court could not have" read it unless' called upon by either the plaintiff or defendant. If the Clerk of the Court in such cases were compelled to read evidence forwarded by commission, and a witness unwittingly made a wrong statement, the Clerk would make him commit perjury. I; appeared to him the- application came too late, and after the.period fixed by the-Cbiirt. —Mr. Weston also opposed the application. — His Honor reserved his decision.

Kent v. Kelly.—Mr. Hesketh for plaintiff, Mr. Joy for the defendant.—This was an action to recover £10 os. 2d., for goods supplied.. "The.-defence was, that the goods were hot Supplied as alleged, with the exception, of three items, which had been paid for. There was a cross-action for £5 155., money lent. The plaintiff Kent deposed that he purchased the goods at the defendant's request, and supplied them to h;m. Defendant never paid him anything. When first asked for payment, he said he had no money, and afterwards said he did not owe tho money. With respect to the loan of. £5 15s. alleged; by. the defendant, tho witness said- the money was given to him to purchase goods for hinv»-which be did.' He" never'got" any money on his own account.—The defendant was called, and said, that he knew tbe plaintiff on the West Coast. They had been mates together/ The plaintiff came to his house in September, and not October, as witness stated, and remained eleven weeks, instead of six, as deposed to. Lent the plaintiff £3 on one - occasion, £1 on another, and various small sums at other times. Tho plaintiff had brought flour, salt, apples, and other goods to the house, but not on defendant's acconnt. The defendant admitted that ho had made cakes out of some of tho flour, and used some of the salt.—Mary Anne Kelly, daughter of defendant, a child of tender years, was called to corroborate the evidence of her father. She was examined at some length by the Court as .to the time when,' the places where, and descriptions of the coin in which the various sums wei-e lent, but she contradicted her father in many particulars. She said the £3 was lent, £2 in notes and £1 in silver; thatsums which her father said were lent W the bakehouse were lent in a different place.—His Honor deliverrd a very severe admonition to the defendant for bringing a child of such tender years to corroborate, his" statement. It was a very dangerous thing to bring a child of such tender years to give evidence upon points of detail. —Counsel having been heard on eithor side, the Court gave judgment for thq.plainti.ff in the first case, and for the defendant in tlie crdSs action. $

Leebs v. Fbeeb : Publican's Bbokebagk. —Claim £20.—Mr. Brookfield and Mr. Kissling appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Beveridgo for the defendant. This was an action for commission on valuation of furniture, bar fittings, &o.,:andlsale of Q.C.E. — Mr. Bennetv movad for a fresh bill of particulars. He said there wero two distinct transactions. No. date was given, and it was impossible -to proceed. . It appeared during the progress of the causethat the money'was claimednot only for Valuation, btit for "procuring a customer" to tako over the Q.C.E. It also appeared that the defendant had closed with a customer, procured by himself, without the consent of the plaintiff.—Mr. Beveridge said it was wholly. ipipMsibjle i to goon -vrithout fuller particulars.—The case' was adjourned to next Court-day. Foet t. Eaton.—This was an action upon a promissory note,,but it^ appeared the nojte •was hotl stamped, 4attd the'^pla'tifc was withdrawn.

Adjoueued.—Wilkins v. Taylor, £8 12s ; Ewington r. T?aylqr, £t\ Is. 7d. j Vogel v. Keetley,- £3 175.; AustehiVi'Taylor, 15s.