RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. THIS DAY.

Auckland Star, Volume VI, Issue 1670, 25 June 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. THIS DAY.

(Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., R.M.) Judgments for Plaintiffs.

T. Ellison v. R. C. Mainwaring, claim £1 17s, goods, 16s costs ; E. Hodgson v. Geo Finlay, claim £14 3s 9d, goods, costs £2 7s (Mr Kissling for plaintiff); W. J. Hill v. Thomas Horen, claim £2, costs £1 4s 6d ; R. and W. Hellaby v. Henry Ellis (Mr Hughes for plaintiff), claim £4 3s 7d. goods ; R. Reeves v. Rogers, claim £8 9s 3d, beef and mutton (Mr Thome for plaintiff), costs £1 19s. A. CRAIG V. H. DONNELLY. Claim, £2. Mr Brock for plaintiff. In this case plaintiff claimed for use and occupation. James Carson, rent-collector, deposed that the plaintiff was indebted to the amount claimed. Particulars having been stated, the Court gave judgment for plaintiff. UPTON AND CO. V. J. SHEEHAN. Claim, £6 63. 9d., goods. Mr. John H. Upton proved the debt still owing. Judgment for plaintiff. MATTHEW MARSHALL V. HENRY ELLIOTT. Claim, £1 work. Wm. Fulton deposed that a man of the name of Marshall was employed by him on the wharf and duly paid on the following Saturday ;i he believed the plaintiff was not that man. Plaintiff's claim also did not agree with the amount'due to the right Marshall. His Worship said that plaintiff had [failed ,

to make out his case to the satisfaction of the court. Plaintiff accepted a nonsuit. APPLICATION. Mr. Thorne made an application to the court respecting solicitor's fees in two highway rate cases in the district of Karangahape road, in which cases the amount had been paid into court. Mr. Thorne complained that he had been put to expense and trouble, and should be entitled to his fees ; he was anxious to have the opinion of the court on this matter, as it was probable that a number of similar cases might be bniuiiht into court His Worship said that, in all cases of the kind, the court could not allow more than I 10s. where the amount did not exceed £1, or I were under that amount; and this fee must include all expenses in connection with the rate.

ADJOURNED. Gee and Potter v. John Mullally, claim £6 14s. William Rattray, v. C. Smith, claim £10 17s. lOd.