RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, BLENHEIM.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume II, Issue 97, 24 February 1880, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, BLENHEIM.

Monday, February 23rd. (Before 11. Mclntire, Esq., R.M.] There was no Criminal cases before the Court, The following Civil business was disposed of : T. o’SULLIVAX (TRUSTEE IN TIIE ESTATE OF 11. CONDY) v. RILEY (OF HAVELOCK.) This was an action to recover the sum of £ll Os Gd, the amount of an hotel bill. Defendant did not appear and plaintiff having proved the debt obtained judgment for the amount claimed and costs. SAME V. S. MAULE (OF REN WICK.)

This was a similar action for £lO 4s 9d, and was adjourned by consent for a month. WHITE LEY V. GILLIGHAN. This was an action by Mr Wlhtoley, hoard and lodginghouse keeper, against Mrs Gillighan, of Wellington, for £1 lbs lid for oysters, gin, and other refreshments supplied. The defendant did not appear. Plaintiff having proved the debt the Resident Magistrate reserved judgment until a la ,er hour of the day saying lie was afraid plaintiff v mild have to be non-suited unless lie cor'd p ,;e that the lady was a widow. PHILLIPS V. GREY (MAORI). This was claim for £5 5s Gd for goods sold and del vered. Mr D ckens, storekeeper, Marl be i town, p ed the debt, and 0 L hied judgmei t for the amo mt claimed and costs.

j. EMERSON V. R. MTvOR. This was an action by Mr Emerson, late Blenheim, and now Inspector of Police at Tauranga, against Roderick Melvor, of Rcnwicktown, to recover the sum of £45, being an amount due from April 12th to December 31st, 1579, under a memorandum of agreement dated January 28th, 1879, for the use of the the racing filly Marie Stewart. Defendant confessed judgment for £3O, which was accepted on helialf of the plaintiff. SCOTT V. G. THOMAS.

This was an application to take evidence here in a matter pending at W ellington, between Joseph Scott, baker, and George Thomas, auctioneer, Wellington. Mr Sinclair, who appeared for the plaintiff, explained the case. The plaintiff sued the defendant for that in the month of March, 1879, at Wellington, he (plamtfff) purchased from the defendant goods to the value of £39 2s, amongst them being half a ton of sugar of the value of £2O 10s. Defendant promised and agreed to deliver the goods to the plaintiff, but he had not delivered the half ton of sugar. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant fr ululerAly advised the plaintiff to sign a p n'sso y note for £39 2s, byr prese; tingai Jadvismg him that if lie signed the promissory note the defendant would deliver the aforesaid half ton of sugar. The defendant r odorsed the said note to the Bank of Australasia, for value, and the plaintiff was thereupon compelled to pay the sum of £39 2s on the Ist of July, 1879, and was unable to prove a failure of consideration. The plaintill nas received from the defendant’s estate the sum of £2 only on a”co mt of the said sum of £2O 10s. Wherefore the plaintiff claims to recover from the defendant the sum of £lB 9s. Mr Scott, the plaintiff, gave evidence in support of these facts. WIIITELHY V. GILLIGHAN. This case stood over for judgment. In reply to the Couit, the plaintiff stated i that defendant was carrying on business as

a board and lodging-house peeper on her own account in Wellington and was supposed to be a widow. The Court gave judgmcntTor theamount claimed and costs.