PALMERSTON NORTH.

Manawatu Times, Volume III, Issue 81, 20 July 1878, Page 3

PALMERSTON NORTH.

i Thttbsdat, 18th July, 1878. (Before R. Ward; Esq., R.M. ; and H. McNeil, Esq., JP. Tliere were no criminal charges ©a the list. C. Brightwell v. Wi MahurL Claim, £1 2s 6d. Mr Staite appeared for- the plaintiff". Defendant admitted thedebr, and judgment was given'for amount claimpd, with 10s costs. Walton &K?ng v. Marten Bcesen. Claim, £5 10s 4d. Defendant did ■ not put m an appearance, and judgment, ex parfe, was given. Walt-en & King v. E. C. Christiansen. , Claim, 14s. Judgment by conseat,. jwith costs. • E. Brightwell v John Hanlon.. : Claim,. £18 14s Id. Mr Staite for plaintiff;. Verdict by ' consent for £15 '14s ld r and costs. Joha Pollock t. W. H. Chitham.. Claim, £1. Mr Coleman appeared for the plaintiff,.but the-Bench informed . him that by the Act of 1868- he had no status m Court, not being a barrister or solicitor of the Supreme Court. Mr Coleman then instructed Mr Staite, who conducted" the- case for the plaintiff. Defendant did not appear, but a letter was read mCou\rt'acknowledging the debt. Judgment for amount with lls costs. ; . Christopher Mcßae v. Adam Clarice. : Claim, £12 10s. Mr Staite appeared for the plaintiff. Defendant produced a receipt for the amount, claimed*, at . which Counsel admitted surprise.. Case dismissed, as was also a claim by defendant for expenses. Roe &• Green v. John Davy., -Claym, £4 Is 9d. A judgment sum-, mons. Defendant said he was quite willing to paythe amount if one month's time were granted: Plaintiff objected, as he was informed that although not working recently, defendant had* had large advances on a contract m hand. Order made that the amount be paid within a forfrnighVin default 14. days' imprisonment. . '■*' Peter HemagescnV. A. Cross. Claim, £55, for felling and clearing 50 acres of land. Mr Staite a-ppeared ■for the plaintiff, and Mr Cash for the defendant. Mr Staite m opening the | case said that a contract had been accepted by his client t a. fell 50 acres of bush at £2 per acre; all trees under jfour- feet to be 1 cut down,, excepting totara and rata. The work- had been I executed as per agreement, and as a proof that the claim had been fairly : earned,, he might state that the work ;had occupied three men for- a- period' of four months and a half. Although the , summons showed a claim for £55, v tliat amount had been reduced to £39/ 6s 6d, which it was sought to recover. The -ca-se occupied a considerable portion of the day, there being a large number of ■witnesses, and £13 4s 9d was paid into Court. After a- lengthy and careful hearing, the Bench gave a verdict for the defendant, with costs £7 6s 6d. Mr Staite at the close of the case applied for- * rehearing,;Y on the following grounds.:— First,, that defendant had admitted a balance of £15 had been : struck;, and therefore, the judgmentbeing only for £13 4s 9d— the amount paid into Court — was erroneous. 2nd, that the plaintiff claimed £100, which was admitted, and the total amount of set-off only amounted to £92, therefore the Court m giving judgment haxl taken into consideration certain items " for goods not mentioned m th.c set-offi Mr Cash argued at great length against a rehearing,; and the Bench announced that it saw no reason. to alter its former decision, or to grant the application. Richard Peck v. Humphrey and Barker. Claim,. £11, for carting metal. MrStaite appeared" for the defendant Barker. Judgment for £7 7s 6d, and costs. C. Humphrey v, Richard Peck. Clai m, £8' 19s Id, for board and lodging. ■ Judgment for £4 3s Id, and costs, 135.. ;