PATEA DISTRICT COURT.

Patea Mail, Volume II, Issue 122, 10 June 1876, Page 2

PATEA DISTRICT COURT.

Wednesday, Junk 7. (Before his Honor Juclgc Kenny.) There was no criminal business before the Court. A number of jurors, who did not attend at the last sitting of the Court, and against whom a fine of £5 each had been recorded, had these amounts remitted, as it proved that they had not been served with summonses to attend, though drawn for service. CIVIL CASES. McGuire v Q. Muir—An action to recover £3O, on a promissory note. Verdict for amount claimed with £5 3s costs. Taplin v. Hurangi Case dismissed through an informality in the summons. Hickie v. Waller—Mr Adams for plaintiff, Mr Hammerton for the defendant. Tins was a tedious question of account between the parties extending over several years. Plaintiff claimed £76 to which defendant put in a set-off of £2l 10s 4d. Plaintiff was non-suited on his claim, and the set-off of defendant was allowed, the verdict practically being for defendant with £22 3s costs. The case of Kelly v. Beamish was adjourned till next day in consequence of the absence of plaintiff. Thursday, June 8. Kelly v. Beamish —Mr Hammerton appeared for defendant. This was a claim of £6l 12s 6d for fencing and timber supplied. Defendant had paid £2 18s sid into Court in full satisfaction. On the case being called there was no appearance of the plaintiff, and the ease was dismissed with £2l 10s costs. At . the request of Mr Hammerton, his Honor allowed immediate execution to he issued, chiefly to be able to seize the money paid into Court, but it subsequently turned out that plaintiff had taken it out of Court, as soon as the office was open, the amount and costs paid in, and had then cleared out of town. This was all the business, and the Court then adjourned.