RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4239, 27 September 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wednesday, September 27. (Bofo»o T. A. Mansford, Esq., R.M.)

Brown, Ewing, and Co. v. Mouat.—ln this case the plaintiffs had obtained a judgment summons, but upon being called on (or hearing Mr E. Cook objected that the Court had no jurisdiction to issue or hear the summons, as a judgment summons had previously been issued for the same debt, although it hod been withdrawn. Mr Coek observed that Rule No. 10 of the rules made under “'Jhe Impriso meat for Debt Act, 1871,” expressly provides that “no successive judgment summonses shall beissued,” and that the power to adjourn the hearing from time to time under the 11th rule rendered more than one summons unnecessary.— Mr Brown informed the Bench that the summons had been withdrawn, because Mr Mouat had undertaken to call his creditors together, if it were done, but he now refused to call them together. He asked the Bench to take his explanation into consideration because the summons bad been withdrawn on account of Mr Mouat’a false representations,—Mr Mouat : You have no right to make such an assertion.—Mr Brown: I repeat it. —Mr Mouat: You dare not repeat it in another place.—His Worship reserved his decision upon the point raised by Mr Cook. Aikman v. Goldsmith was a claim for L6l 10s, for rent. The defendant proved that after February 5 ho sold his interest in the lease to Mr 11. Greoulicld, from whom tha plaintiff’s attorney Lad accepted rent. Judgment for p aiutiff, L2O and costs. Gibbs and Clayton Y, J)oughtj.—ln this case, heard last week, his Worship now gave judgment for the defendant, but gave leave to the other side to appeal.

Tyree and another v. Bethtme.—ln thi* also heard last week, his Worship save judgment for plaintiff for LlB 4a, and costs. -ivl ‘Liskey y. Wm. lanes. Judgment summons for £1 sb, Defendant ordered to pay Ss a week, in default fourteen days’ imprisonment. Same v. Anthony Mills.—Judgment summons for £1 7s 3d. Defendant ordered to pay 5s a week, or seven days’ imprisonment. In the following cases judgment was given for the plaintiff for the amounts stated, with costs : —lf. Wilson v. Matthew Fogarty, L 22 19s 5d ; same r. Button, L4B 18s 9d ; same v. John 1 awson, L2B 16s 9d; A. and J. Macfarhme v. Andrew Reid, L 7 8s 8d; D. Sampson v. W. B. Long, L 4 9s; same r. John Honat, L 7 17s 6d; B. Shaw v. Alf. Masters, ,10a; Guthrie and Larnach.v. E. Sandford, L 33 9s 8d; same v. Stokes and Sandford, L 49 3s 3d; Eaton v. G. Nicoll, £l4 18s 6d; Ziele v. Gawne, L 32 7s.