RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 32, 5 January 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

(Before J. Booth, Esq., R.M.) FRIDAY. CAMERON V. DUNLOP. Claim £5O on a dishonored promissory note. Mr J. W. Nolan appeared for the plaintiff. No appearance of the defendant, After Mr. Cameron had given evidence as to the dishonoring of the note, which was drawn by Goldsmith and accepted by Dunlop, his Worship gave judgment for the amount and costs, £3 13s. CRAWFORD V. PETEBS. This was a claim for £23 8s 6d. Mr. Nolan, who appeared for the claimant, stated that he would ask leave to withdraw, as the defendant had filed. Leave granted accordingly. PARNELL AND BOYLAN V. TURTON. Claim for the sum of £2 Is 2d. Mr. Nolan, who appeared for the cMfendant, said he was agreeable that an order for payment should be made on Tuesday, the 15th instant. Mr. Parnell having agreed, his Worship made the order accordingly. E. K. BROWN V. HAPI KINGI. This was a claim for £7 Ils 6d, balance of an account due on a judgment summons. The defendant, who appeared in person, acknowledged his indebtedness to the amount claimed, and agreed to an order being made for payment on Friday the 11th inst., in default eight days’ imprisonment. G. JOHNSTON V. R. WILSON. Mr. Nolan appeared in support of the claim. Claim, £8 15s, for goods sold and delivered. The defendant, it appeared, had been the proprietor of the Royal Hotel in the year 1882, and the debt had been incurred for goods supplied by the claimant, who was then carrying on business as a brewer in the Gisborne Brewery, Lowe-street. Mr. G. Johnston, brewer, knew the defendant when landlord of the Royal Hotel, and remembered supplying the goods claimed for. The goods consisted of one hogshead of beer and four dozen of stout, delivered on the Ist of May, 1882. The brother of the defendant signed the receipt. On the 14th of April of the same year there was also four dozen of stout delivered and signed for. On the 13th of the same month there was also one hogshead of beer delivered. The cask was charged for on acoount of its not being returned. The orders for these goods were received verbally, and the delivery-book was signed by the defendant’s brother. He could swear to the signature, as Mr. Wilson’s brother had acknowledged to the same. The evidence of the defendant, taken before a J.P. at Waikato, was then read, and contained a denial as to having received any goods whatever after the 14th of May. His Worship said Mr. Wilson was evidently mistaken as to the dates. He would make an order for the payment of the amount, and costs £1 17s. This concluded the business of the Court.