RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.— THIS DAY.

Auckland Star, Volume VI, Issue 1664, 18 June 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.— THIS DAY.

(Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., R.M.) JUDGMENTS FOR PLAISTIFFS. Ireland Bros. v. Charles Purday, claim-^ £S Oa'Gd :3s per week; Cook and Clayton, v. Pellet, claim—l 23, goods ; Joseph Abbot v. James Innes, claim—£l4 9s lid ; Ai> Asher v. Daniel Muaro, claim—£4 93 : 53 per week ; Craig v. Callaghan, claim —£5 10s, promissory note ; Wm. Combe v. Thos. Martin claim—£4, 1.0. U. (Mr Thorne for plaintiff.)

M. MT7RCHIE V. JOHPT L. NEWBTTRY.

Claim, £16 6s 3d._ Mr Devore for. plaintiff. This was a claim of £16 6s 3d, promisory note, and interest thereon. Judgment for plaintiff; costs, £2 7s. CARSON" V. JONES. Claim, £3 2s lid. Mr Rees for plaintiff. Mr Hesketh for defendant. " This case, which was a claim-for. highway rates for the district of Dedwood since changed to Ponsonby, which claim defendant disputed on the ground that it was an illegal claim, and not in accordance with law. . . ■

Hia Worship, afrer weighing the matter, decided in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant, however, was dissatisfied with the decision of the Court, and applied for a new hearing, in which other evidence would be forthcoming. . v -

His Worship thought the matter ought to be held in abeyance until next Court day, so that the evidence which Mr Hesketh might bring forward should be complete. Mr Rees said that he should prefer that the case be gone into at once, as during the pending of this matter, Mr Carson could not collect any rates in the district.

His Worship remarked that this, case could not possibly interfere with the collecting of the other rates, as this could not govern the others. Mr Rees still urged for a decision, as the eyes of all the Highway Boards were anxiously watching the case. His Worship said that with the Amended Act it would be impossible for defendant to escape payment, and he thought it was folly "to hold out any longer. He should certainly recommend no adjournment until the parties; got the Amended Act; if the case was argued to-day, the Couit could give judgment, as he was desirous of doing justiue in the case j bus his own opinion was that there was no escape from paying the rates, and ratepayers were most unwise in holding out.

It was finally agreed that the matter - should stand over until next week. JAMES MOONEY V. FKED. HORAM. Claim, £15. Mr. Hees for plaintiff. This was a claim for goods. Bridget Mooney, wife of the plaintiff, deposed that defendant got gooda of her nearly to the amount of the claim, which be told her that Mr Kissling would pay. He made an order on Mr Kissling, but upon presenting it to that gentleman there were no effects. She gave him a bill, which he tore up in disgust before her face. Prisoner denied the claim, but Jjj^own written promises were-against him,-pC:" >•"*- / nothing to say. ' j. ' ~\J_,. Judgment for plaintiff ; c^jsga3oxa^-^fo^ . JAMES LEVY V. JAJUJtS .z^i^l.J^. Claim £ 18a. » This was a claim for wearing annarel, the %

claim for which, having been proved by plaintiff, judgment was recorded in his favour. V s WJtf J. MESSENGER V. WM. PALMER. >\w'm, £20. J- t, ; Joy for plaintiff, and Mr. Eees for Wndant. f his w*£S an action for the recovery of £20 ■ \ ixtures removed from a butcher's shop in S' \ ncent-street by defendant, which the following evidence will explain. Mr Msrsden, solicitor, deposed to knowing three Messengers mentioned in the deed, the execution of which by the father and son he w&tnessed; he knew the butchers shop at the corner of Vincent-srreet, which was a portion of the property convejed by that deed in April, 1574; he drew the lease. William John Messenger deposed that this action was brought in the names of himself and wife ; his wife had an interest in the property at the corner of Pitt-street, on which a mortgage was held by Messrs Levy and Goldwater. The said property was transferred, from his son, William Henry Messenger, to his mother on certain considerations, the preperty was included in the deed, which was signed in the presence of Mr Maraden, and that property is the subject of the present action. On the 20th April last he recoved the key of the shop from Mr Palmer when he was absent.

His Worship : How could you receive the key when you were not there. Mr Messenger: It was left at his shop, and when he returned to his shop, the key was given to him. He then went to the Vincent-street shop with his carpenter, Fargie, and upon examination found that fixtures and articles mentioned in the summons had been removed.

(Left sitting.)