RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.—GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 4, 3 November 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.—GISBORNE.

(Before J, Booth Esq., R.M.) FRIDAY. Katarina Kahutia v Allan McDonald, M.HR. His Worship said, with regard to this case, he had been in communication with Judge Brookfield, of the Native Land Court, who laid that there was a case connected with this one still before him, and which was not yet settled there. He thought, ns that was the case, it would not be advisable to proceed with this case until the one be* fore him in the Native Land Court had been decided. Mr Kenny, for the defendant, said that he h id written to Mr McDonald othSaturday the 27th inscant, addressing to Auckland, in order to obtain instructions to proceed with the case, but up to the present he had had no reply, and since that he had ascertained that he, McDonald, had left fur Whaugarei. He would therefore like to have lhe case adjourned still further, until McDonald could tie communicated with. He said McDonald went away under the impression that the case would be proceeded with by a third party, but who now would not do so. Mr C. A DeLiuljur, for the plaintiff, said the case in the Native Land Court Was uh rely to find what securities ought to be riven on certain blocks, to satisfy the Court before it would make sub-division. His Worship thought if judgment was given for the annuity in that Court it would oc dividing a cuu.se of action. He wanted to «• e the matter settled in the other Court first. dr DeLautour said that McDonald burdened Whataupoko with £2O. He conveyed i-o a third pat ty, Mr P. Barker, who agreed to idemtsify McDonald by paying the annuity. McDonald had telegraphed down to say that lr Ward, and his learned friend Mr Kenny, were acting for Mr P. Barker in the natter, but Mr Kenny had told him that he was not appearing for Mr P. Barker. Mr \lcDunald would not defend this action 'inks# Mr Barker moved in the matter. The :<ise was actually between Barker and vlcDonald He considered the plaintiff was ■ntitled to judgment as there was no defence. He would not like to have her (plaintiff s) rights prejudiced. dis Worship wished to know if judgment was given in that Court, would not that debar her from getting more money on the deed in question.

Mr DeLautour said it would not, recognising the fact that the case had been before he Native Land Court. He thought judge.neut should be entered up for the plaintiff. His Worship said ihe adjournment would given in her (plaintiff’s) interest He would uljoiirn the case till such lime as the enquires into the case now before the Native Laud Court were settled. J. Wade v. D. Dawson. Claim £9 13s fur work done for the defendant. Mr’Brassey for plaintiff. The defendant disputed the claim because it was overehaiged iu almost every item. Considerable evidence was gone into, and judgment was given for the plantiff with Kists. His Wo-Mrip not considering that there was a gener. 1 overcharge.

A. G. Ck >ll v. Joe James. Claim 15s ,9d, balance uf account. Mr Finn appeared for the plaintiff. There was no appearance uf the defendant. Judgment for the amount claimed aud costs.