HAWERA.

Patea Mail, Volume IV, Issue 343, 31 July 1878, Page 2

HAWERA.

(from our own correspondent.) R.M. COURT.— Monday, July 29. (Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M., and J. Livingstone, Esq., J.P.) Geouoe Cole v George McLean. This was a case in which the plaintiff sued defendant for foes for medical attendance upon defendant’s mother-in-law (since deceased), and for whom defendant was sole executor. Defendant pleaded nonliability, on account of being a member of the llawcra Medical Society, and con-

sidored that be was entitled to free attendance to all members of his family residing in his house. Dr Cole produced his agreement with the Medical Society, in which it only stated that attendance was free to all subscribers, and that nousnbscrihers should pay the usual fee. The Magistrate decided that, on the strength of the agreement, defendant’s mother-in-law could not justly be considered a member of the family, and accordingly gave judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed and costs. Mr Adams appeared for plaintiff. JR. Lynch vJ. Troweck. Claim £B, for lining and papering two rooms. Defendant pleaded that plaintiff had not completed his contract, which was for three rooms, and that the paper used was stained and otherwise damaged. Plaintiff called a witness, who proved that the work had been satisfactorily done, and judgment was given for amount churned and costs.

IL Lynch v J. Stevenson. Claim £7 7s, for erecting a dividing-fence between plaintiff’s and defendant’s sections. Mr Roy appeared for defendant. Several witnesses were called, who proved that amount claimed was an excessive charge for the work done, which they valued at £6. The Magistrates accordingly gave judgment for that amount and costs. A. Broadbent v Thomas Gardner. Claim£l. As defendantdid not appear, judgment was given for the amount claimed, and costs 9s. P. Carey v Thomas Claymore. Mr Adams for plaintiff, and Mr Roy for defendant. This was a case in which plaintiff wished to obtain possession of a house in the occupation of defendant, and asked the Magistrates; to grant an order for the same. Tile house had been sold in 1877, to a, Mr Nuttal, who signed agreement to pay £IOO for the house in monthly instalments of £2, and should the purchaser at any time fail to pay the deposits for three consecutive months, all the moneys that had already been paid should be considered forfeited, and the house and land revert to the original owner. It appeared that no payment had been made from the Ist of March last until the 3rd ol Juno, when Mr Greig, who had previously acted as agent for Mr Nuttal, but had lately purchased the land and house on his own account, called Mr Carey into his office to pay him the arrears owing. Mr Carey refused to take the money, unless paid to him by Mr Nuttal in person, and now claimed the properly, as the conditions of the agreement had not been kept. Mr Greig had since also sold the house and laud to Mr Claymore, who now held possession. Mr Roy contended that as a question of title was involved, it was without the jurisdiction of the Court to give judgment, and the Magistrates coinciding in this opinion, accordingly dismissed the case, each party to pay his own costs. JR. Lynch vA. Noble. Adjourned to 12th August.