RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5579, 14 February 1879, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, February 13. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. 0. Mclntyre v. W. Grant, Claim, £2 Ss. 4d. Defendant was ordered to pay the amount in two instalments; the? first on 13th March, and second on 9th April; in default two weeks imprisonment. _ Proprietors of Evening Argus v. Cannes Moody—Claim, £1 19s. Defendant was ordered to pay the debt at once, or in default, seven days' imprisonment. CIVIL CASES. ,T. E. Nathan v. Thomas Hayward.— Claim, £•23 18a., for a dishonored promissory note. Judgment for the plaintiff by default for the amount claimed and costs. In the case of Smith v. O’Grady, heard last week, which was a claim for £IOO for an assault, his Worship now gave judgment for the plaintiff for £ls and costs. . W. H. Green v. James Farley.—Claim, £1 10s. Defendant admitted the claim, and judgment was given to plaintiff, with costs, James Marshall v. Wm. Cable. Claim, £1 7s. for labor. Mr. Chapman appeared for the defendant. Judgment for plaintiff, and in. Austin v, J. Dottkowitz. —Claim, £2B. Mr. Ollivior for plaintiff, Mr. Stafford for defendant ; for commission at per cent, on £3OO, relative to the disposal of some land at Featherston. Plaintiff also claimed sundry amounts of money for travelling and printing. In his evidence plaintiff stated that it was arranged to dispose of the land by means of the art union principle. In Featherston witness found it very difficult to get red of tickets, At Masterton he managed to get rid of some because the people did not know the quality of the ground. He found that on examining the land that it was all stoney, and there was scarcely a thimblefull of soil to be found on the whole block. So bad was it that the surveyors were unable to drive in their pegs, and had to build them with stones.—Mr. Stafford contended that the claim was an illegal one, being a lottery, and such a contract under the Lotteries Act could not be claimed.—J. Lottkowitz deposed that he bought the land from Mr. It. J. Duncan. Witness did not know the cprality of the land, and placed it in Mr. Austin’s hands to dispose of. The arrangement made with plaintiff was that witness was to give him £ls and pay for advertising. Witness took the business out of plaintiff s hands because of some dishonorable proposal made by plaintiff to him (witness) in regard to drawing prizes in the art union.—A. Neville deposed that he knew plaintiff and defendant. He was frequently in plaintiff’s office. On one occasion witness heard plaintiff and a person named Dawson say “ that if the art union came off it was very little of the money that Lottkowitz would see.”—By Mr. Ollivier ; I was trying to sell tickets for the art union. I was to get Is. for each one I disposed of. I told Lottkowitz that the whole affair was a swindle. —Plaintiff, recalled, stated that he never made any such remark that defendant would get very little money out of the affair.—This was all the evidence, and his Worship reserved judgment.