MAGISTERIAL.

Patea Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 982, 10 January 1883, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

PATEA—YESTERDAY. ... (Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R. M.) CIVIL CASES. Judgment was given for the plaintiff by default with costs in the following cases : Haycock v. Haase, £5 12s 9d : Eyton v. Baxter, claim 13s, rates due. Same y. Chadwick Jun., 18s. Same v. Chadwick senr. Same v. A. R. Pye. Same v. Macnuly, 2s. Same v. McKenzie, ss. Same v. Irvine, 6s. Eyton v. Young, £ls 7s. Judgment for plaintiff, - Eyton v. Davis and Eyton v. Colson were adjourned. McKenna v. White. Case adjoined. Taylor v. Scantling, £6 3s.- Mr Barton for plaintiff. Plaintiff deposed that he lent a waggon to defendant for 15 weeks at a rent of 7s 6d per week. The defendant said the charge was unreasonable, the waggon being only worth 5s per week. Judgment for plaintiff with £1 18s costs. the county council cases. Mr Adams applied for a re-hearing in those cases in which judgment had been given for defendant on Friday, basing his claim on the 12lh section of the Act of 1879, which says “ It shall he sufficient it any demand required to bo made under Section 48 of “ The Hating Act, 1876,” be made by the same being sent through any post office addressed to the person liable, at his last known place of abode or business.” He said that on Friday last he was only instructed a few minutes before the sitting of the Court, and consequently had not time £0 look up the Act that day. Rehearing granted. Horner v. Prouse — Defendant produced a receipt, but not for the year for which he was sued. Ho stated that his brother had the receipt in question. Judgment for amount claimed, a rehearing to be granted if defendant produces receipt. Horner v, Hamilton, Judgment for plaintiff. Horner v. Coutts. This case, which had been adjourned from Friday, now came on forbearing. Defendant slated that he had not, been in possession of the land for winch the rates wore sought since 1879, but as his name appeared on the ratebook, judgment was given for plaintiff on the ground that he should have objected to the Valuation List. The defendant gave notice of appeal. The Court then rose.