RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Friday.

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 549, 13 October 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Friday.

[Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., R.M.]

The usual weekly meeting of this Court was held this morning, when the following cases were disposed of: — 3 ; , Paul v. Sadguove—No appearance. Smith v. Stichley.—No appearance. Four v. Eaton.— Claim £5 3s 3d, ordered to be paid at £1 per veekA ' : Barky v. iviLaouit.-^Cfaiin^S 10s. Plaintiff agreed to take t5. Finlay v. MURRAY. —No appearance.

Judgment FOB Plaintiff.—A rcher . and Brown v. :r Joltbn, £I-:l6i. Giles v. Barr, £3 10s lid.^Y 'a-:- £fe : ■■■- ; . ' DEFENDED OASEB. *.. Baird^v,: Owen and Gbaham.—Claim. £13 13s. ffd. Mr. Rees for the plaintiff.- 3CrWesion for the defendants.—Thi- -«>Hon whs brought at a previous sitlii-.-r. o,lt' lhe plaintiff was nonsuited. Th- iacfc" > ld own published on the p.evious hearing. JLheae are brieQv* «•*- follows:—Messrs.; rOtfen- una Dallam had a correspondent, .ak-iTahiti; named Canning, who sent his two boys to be placed at school in Auckland, and subsequently at Nelson College. Tbefboys were placed at ' the plaintiff's school) subject, according to the defence, to removal at any time, without notice being given. They were removed without notice. The declaration alleged ibat, there was no such condition in the "dohtr&ot ;; that notice should have been given * that if the condition were incident to the boys being sent to Nelson College.they did not go at that time. The evidence -wa»-very positive loh ; either side. —liis Worship thought there was a grievous misapprehension, uud the case might be withdrawn, for the credibility of either party, could not bo impeached. At $»ftsuggestion bf the Court, the further hearing was adjourned to n&t. Court day, iv; tho"hope that the parties wojuldj, come to an amicable settlement. -' B••■'■*■ 5 Arnold v. Coblktt and Davy.—Claim £6, for use and occupation of premises in Queenstreet, two doors from, the Bank of New Zea ; land, "held by a company known as "The United S|"rfire brokers'* Company," for 7 advancement of money (£10,000)', on gocjd security.— M_>_rook_el'dfor plaintiff, Mr. ITesketh for clefendants.^Mr.'Brookfield said it could not be sustained-by the evidence that the defendant Davy occupied thi premises.—"Edward Arnold proved the occupation. —The defence was that tbe'defendant Corlett'took* the premises from' a person named •Luseombe;' and not from the plaintiff. The plaintiff -sind he let to Lus-co_be-on:beh»if of thocompany. Luseombe, however,.got drunk oiie night, and the defendunts canaein and turned him out, saying, ; they■!■ were1 'the company.—Mr. Hesketh produced, a written, agreement between Corlett, andLuscombo, in which a. certain sum was to be paid, and wasipaidj with Which*! Luseombe paid to plaintiff eight w.-cks' rent. The rent, in advance, :was paid in June lust. Corlett deposed that:his;arra«igetnent was wholly with [Luscoiubc, and hud nothing to do with Arnold. ;Never said to " Arnold j they and iDavv). were tlie company!— Nonsuited. ! a _■'_ y_/. ■■ * -••«>'■; _./. t'l'iJ