RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Dunstan Times, Issue 363, 9 April 1869, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

(extended Jurisdiction.) A pail 6,

Ilillbouss v r . Scott and others. —Claim for £42 18s. Gd, for butcher,s meat supplied to tho defendants. Mr. Brough, who appeared for the defendants, applied for an adjournment, stating that the parties were endeavouring to make an arrangement with their corditors, an ', that if the present case was hoard now and judgment given fortho plaintiff, it might tend to prevent the proposed arrangement being successfully carried into effect The plaintiff objected to any postponement, and the Bench refused the application. Judgment for £4l 15s. and costs. At a later period of the day, the defendants in the above case filed a Declaration of Insolvency, and Mr. Brough applied to Arthur D. Harvey. Esq., the Clerk of the District Court, (who, in the absence of his Honor Mr. Justice Gray, is empowered by the Bankruptcy Act, 1807, to act for the Judge) for an Order to s'ay proceedings. Mr. Brough stated that the application (which was supported by an affidavit of Jas. Scott) was made in order to prevent the property of the debtors being sacrificed for the benefit of one creditor, and with a view of protecting the interests of the general body of creditors, and that it was not possible, in theorlinarycoursoof post for the “Gazette” containing the notice of the filing of the Declaration of Insolvency to be obtained in time to prevent the sale under the Warrant of Distress. The Order was accordingly granted, and the Estate of the debtors will now, probably, be dealt with in the Bankruptcy Court.

Robert Henderson was charged by Donald hi‘Phorson for having wilfully and maliciously injured certain articles, his property, viz.: —a punt and boat, thereby causing damage to the amount of £3. Mr Brough defended the prisoner. We cannot afford space to report the evidence adduced, tho result, however, was that Henderson was lined 20s.’and costs.

Wednesday, April 7.

Rutherford v. Moore.—This was a claim for the sum of £5, for a portion of a house which formerly belonged to a Miss Foy, and which the plaintiff authorized the defendant to remove at thesame time desiring him to settle with Miss Foy, the amount not to exceed £5.

Mr Bailey appeared for tho plaintiff, Mr. Brough lor the defendant, applied for a nonsuit, on the ground that Plaintiff had no authority to sue on Miss Toy’s behalf.' Nonsuit granted.