RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume IV, Issue 1206, 5 December 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THIS DAY,

(Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., R.M.) W. SHERSON V. PERCIVAL AND JACKMAN. In this case, which was a claim for a claim for work and labour, and stood over from the previous Court day, the Resident Magistrate now gave judgment for plaintiff for £5 19s 4d and costs. Mr Laishley appeared for plaintiff. .TUOGMENT.S FOR PLAINTIFFS. T. and H. Cook v. W. Nightingale, jun., £3 15s, for goods ; T. B. Hannaford v. w' i Nightingale, jun., £2 10s, work and labour done and cash lent. (Mr C. Madden for the plaintiff.) R. Graham v. E. Thomas, £9 10s, for a horse sold and delivered' ■F. O^Brien v. W. J. Clarke, £5, on a promissory note; J. F. Stewart v. W. S. Smith, £2 10s, balance of a cheque. (Judgi ment by confession.) Mr Laishley for plaintiff. T. Watters v. T. H. Mabin • this was a claim for £9 13s Id, £5 were paid into Court, which the plaintiff agreed to , accept, and the case was settled on those 1 terms. C. H. WITHERBY V. DUNNINCIIIAM AND ICING. This was an action to recover the sum of £9 4s Id for work and labor. On the case being called on Mr Devoro stated that the matter had been settled, and it was accordinelv struck off the Hat. by J. KELLY V. G. KITCHEN. This was a claim for L 4 2s 7, for goods. The defendent paid L 2 9s into Court, and pleaded not indebted as to tho balance. Mr Joy appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Thome for defendant. Tho Court gave judgment for plaintiff with *i> 5s Gd costs. _ C SPRANCE V. H. M'KINNON. This was a claim for £4 8s for work labour and wages—in digging post-holes. «„ i\ c ,rt gave Wgmtmt for plaintiff for £3 Sd and costs. Mr Coleman for plaintiff, and Mr Keetlev for defendant. *

The plaintiff claimed at the rate of Gape? day, and the defence set up was that a lessei amount was agreed upon. Part o: the won was said to have been done for three-half pence per post-hole.

Mr Coleman made an application "or a certificate under the Contractors' D^hts Act, so as lo enable the plaintiff to avail himself of any funds owing by the original contractor to the defendant.

The Court granted the application. His Worship observed that the practice of contracts being taken by men who could not carry them out for want of means or other causes was most reprehensible, and caused much trouble to the Courts and suffering to poor working men, who were kept out of their wages.

The Court rose at one p.m.