Magistrate's Court.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 786, 31 March 1905, Page 2

Magistrate's Court.

Debt Cases.— : A civil sitting of tho Magistrate's Court was held on Thursday, belore Mr liuicfyijson, S.M. by default was entered in the following cases: Win. Klierui v. It. J. 11.

Nicholas, claim £3O 4s with £2 15s costs, and 8 |>er cent interest on the account to date : Mr Fitzherbert appeared for plaintiff. S. 11. White v. J. account to date; L. B. White v. J. W. Hrigfev, claim £5 lis 9d with 12s costs. A numlier of other cases were confessed, struck out or hdjourncd.

—A Supreme Court Matter.— The case of F. W. Watts v. .Tas. Huwkins, n claimfor £lsil 4s, ulleg>ed to Ihj due by the defendant on the purchase of a hotel at Korwanby, was mentioned.

Mr Wilson (Wilson and Gray) on behalf of the defendant intimated to the Ilcnch that application had been made to remove the case to the Supreme Court, und asked for an adjournment for a week {tending the airrivul of the Supreme Court order in respect lo the removal. Mr Fitzherbcrt, who appeared for tho plaintiff, said that as the removal to the Supreme Court must come as a matter of course on dofondant lodging an application and depositing the necessary security for costs, he would not oppose the adjournment. The matter was accordingly adjourned, ami will be set down' for hearing at the noxt Supreme Court sessions.

—A Land Doal.— Tho case of J. C. Montefiorc (Mr C. H. Weston) v. E. J. Carthew (Mr Malonc) previously adjourned on the Magistrate's advice with a view to settlement, again came before the Court, and as the parties had failed to agree the hearing was proceeded with. This was a claim "for £6|7 10s, boing half the profits on the sale of a block in Towderham Street, and £l2 10s for extra work done in levelling the section. The defendant admitted the claim, which he paid into Court, loss the sum of £!Mi 10s for money len't, und the only item in dispute was Ihc amount of £l2 10s. There was no dispute as to the half j profits or money lent and the case hinged on whether Carthew had agreed to pay the plaintifi a Sum of £l2 10s extra for additional filiingin work, beyond that sj>ccified in the agreement between them. Defendant (Carthew) contended that plaintiff had not completed his work in the manner agreed. I Further evidence was tendered by both the plaintiff and defendant, and the case was then adjourned for a week,- The Magistrate decided to make an inspection of the section in tho moantime.