RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1420, 19 November 1885, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka—Wednesday, Nov. 18,1885. [Before J. Beswick, Esq., R.M.] OIYIL CASBP. F. R. Old field v. J. Connell claim £1 16s. £1 was paid into Court, and the balance was disputed. The amount was claimed for the rent of a roller hired by plaintiff to defendant, £1 12s, and costs of repairs t.» the roller 4s. The defendant dispuUd the cose on the ground that the charge was exorbitant. —Judgment was siven for £ll2s, including the amount paid into Court, and costs. Thomson and Sm'tH v. A. Mirtin, claim, £2 12s 81. Judgment summons.— Ordered to pay at the rate of 10s per week or go to gaol for 14 days. W. Coltman v. E. Smith, claim £7 6*. The Hmount was alleged to be due for wages to the son of th« plaintiff. As the bill of particulars of the plaintiff was not correctly made out the case was adjourned for a week. M. Quina v. J. H. Dickinson, claim £3l 12s 6d, dishonored promissory not«. --Judgment by default for amount clnimol and costs. M. Quinn (trustee in the estate of Mrs Lous) v. E. Cden claim 18»6d Trie amount was paid into Courr.,and judgment wa« given for costs. J. Vrtlvin v. H. Goodey, claim £l2s 7d. The defendant disputed the amount, but - His Worship said he evidently did not understand accounts and gave judgment for amount claimed and costs. Allan and Velvin v. E. Hornbrook, claim £1 4s.—Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs. F. C. Marr.iy v. H. R. Pratt, claim £U9*9d. —W.A.Murray appeared for F. C. Murray, and gave evidence to the effect that the amount was due. The defendant .disputed some items in the account. —The witness Murray stated that the point in dispute was that Pratt gave him an order on Trengrove which was never paid.—The defendant put in a receipt up to a certain date and His. Worship said he would not go behind that date. This left £2 9a 6d due, and against this the defendant put in a set-off of £1 16s 2d, and judgment was givao for 13-» 4d. F. C. Murray v. G. Ward, claim £2 17a 3d. The "amount was disputed.— Walter Spurdon gave evidence to the effect that the defendant had goods to the value of £2 17s 3d from the mill, and produced Ward's signature for thein.— The defendant said he believed he had receipts at home for the money.—Judgment was given for £2 14s. F. 0. Murray v. T. Goodwin, claim £7 18s sJ.—Of this sura £2 17« w»s abandoned as the plaintiff could not prove delivery. Receipts were also put in showing the money had been paid. After inquiry into the matter, judgment was given for Is sd, each party to pay his own costs. F. C. Murray v. P. O'Raw, claim £l2 5a Id,—Judgment by detault for amount claimed and costs, F. C. Murray v. J. Charles, claim £lO os.—The defendant admitted the claim but said that sufficient time had not elapsed between the account .being rendered him and the summons being issued to enable him to pay.—Judgment by consent with costs. F. C. Murray v Smith and Mclllwraith, claim £3l 143 9J.—Mr Hamersley appeared for the defendants, and said that the summons had been issued in th«' name of F. C. Murray, assignee in the estate of W. A. Murray. F. C. Murray was not the assignee. Cook and Davidson were assignees, and they sold the book debta to Murray, but they did not give a power of attorney to sue. It was necessary that they should have given this power.—His Worship doubted this, but as he was not sure, he adjourne i the case for a week. The Court then adioarned.