RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT—Yesterday.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 16, 16 December 1871, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT— Yesterday.

Before W. FRASER, Esq., Tt.AI. J. Craig v. S. Young.— Claim for £ll Is for services.—This ease was further adjourned for a week. J. Edworthy v. J. Cohen. —ln this case which stood over from the previous Court day, the R.M. now gave judgment, by consent, for £l2 Os 3d in addition to the amount paid into Court. Judgment for Plaintiffs. —J. Ochoa v. J. Margin, £2 10s cash lent; Flagship Gr.M.Co. v. D. Pitkethley, £3 15s, for calls ; same v. Gilligan, £3 15s, calls ; same v. Mader, £5 10s, calls ; J. Byers v. F. Cock, £3 2s 7d, balance of an account for butcher’s meat. W. AVilson v. Adolph Biessel. —This was a claim for £2 10s 9d, for goods supplied, and was adjourned for a week on the application of plaintiff.—The defendant did not appear. AV. Coldicutt v. E. Dermott. —This was a judgment summons case for £6 10s. By consent of the parties the R.M. made an order for payment at the rate of 5s per week, and failing payment of any instalment, one month’s imprisonment. Read & Co v. Jas. Sutherland. — This was a judgment summons for £8 14s. —Mr Lasceiles for plaintiff's.—Defendant appeared in person, and was asked why he had not paid, and said it was because he had not got any money. AVas not now in work. Had been getting 9s a day for a short time, and 7s Gd for a while, but had not been working lately. Had some some A r ictoria Consols, but they are not worth anything, rather the other way. Is by trade a coachbuilder, but there’s little or no work in that line here. Mr Lasceiles said he would not ask the Court to make any order on the case. E. V. Dixon v. AV. Philips alias AVoops. —This was an action to obtain possession of a piece of land. —Mr Tyler for defendant, and it had been arranged between the plaintiff’s solicitors, (Macdonald and Miller) and himself, that the case would be adjourned for a week.—Air Dodd said he was not aware of the fact, and he appeared for plaintiff, and was instructed to oppose any adjournment. —The R.M. enquired who was the solicitor on the record. —The Clerk of the court said Messrs. Macdonald and Miller. —Mr Miller here said that it had been arranged to have the case adjourned, and plaintiff consented. — The R.M. said under these circumstances he could not interfere. The case was adjourned for one week. J. Say v. A. AVarrick. —This was an action to recover the sum of £l3 1G 8. for gcods supplied to Mackny and partjq at work between Ohineinuri and Tauranga, on the credit of defendant.—Mr Dodd for defendant, cross-examined the plaintiff from whose statement it appeared that according to the agreement, it appeared that plaintiff was to get an order from Alack ay upon A\ T arrick, but this had not been done. Plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited but without costs.

H. Cezarwonka v. D. Stewart.— Mr Tyler for plaintiff," and Mr Macdonald for defendant. This was an action to re» cover the sum of £2 2. for services rendered in making an examination of a house and premises, at defendant’s request, preparatory to giving evidence as to certain defects in the building. The matter was brought into Court, and was referred to arbitration, and attendance in Court as a witness. Mr Hollis was called to prove that the charge was a fair and reasonable one. —The plaintiff stated that he had originally charged £3, of which £2 2. wbb for inspection and £1 for attending as a witness, but had lowered the amount at the suggestion of a professional friend, — The defendant denied his liability in the matter stating that the man who ought to pay was Rapana, (defendant in the action of Combes v. Rapana). He did not require Mr Cezarwonka’s services for himself, but for Rapana. Before asking Mr Cezarwonka’s assistance, he had been to Mr Cameron, and that gentleman wanted too much £lo.—The Court gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed and costs £3 17. J. Casey v. Wm. Baker.— This was an action to recover the sum of £10" for damages for short delivery (of a case of wine, and was adjourned for a week. There were several other cases on the list, but they were either settled or struck out for non-appearance of the parties concerned.