COURTS.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 238, 13 July 1872, Page 3

COURTS.

POLICE COURT.— Yesterday. [Before W. Fraser, Esq., R.M.] DRUNKENNESS. Magnus Clarks was fined 10s with the alternative of 24 hours’ imprisonment for being drunk the previous day. + RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT— Yesterday. (Before W. FRASER, Esq., R.M.) E. KEVEN V. J. F. KEOGH. This was a judgment summons case for £4 16s 9d. The defendant was examined as to his means and ability to pa}’, and stated that he had no property or means, except what was derived from the practice of his profession, which was that of an actor. At the time this debt was contracted he was i h-ssee of the theatre. The was incurred for board and lodging. Was quite willing to pay when able. The R.M. said he would make no order in this case. O. A. RAYNOR V. J. G. JOYCE. This was a judgment summons case for £2 4s, the amount of aboard and lodging bill, and Costs. Defendant was examined as to his ! means and ability to pay, and stated that 1 he was un.-.bh to pay now, but was quite willing to do so when able. The R.M.declined to make any order in the case. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS. Murphy Bros, v W. Simpson, £2 11s Id, for goods; Phillip & Son v. E. Leyland, £4 Is Gd, for goods ; A. Unthank v. J. Rogers, £4 10s 6, for carriage _ of quartz; J. D. Wickham v. J.-M. Perrier, £l2 9s, on a promissory note ; Way mouth v. E. Leyland, £5 4s sd, for goods ; R. Kennan v. E. Gelling, £lO, money lent ; Holdsliip & Co. v. E. W. Hollis, £l4 2s lid, less £6 paid into Court, for goods. MURPHY B 'OS. V. W. DOUGLAS. This was an action to recover £4 14s 9d, and was partly heard on the previous Court day. The defendant’s brother, a lad of 13, was called, and said the things were supplied to him for three men who lived in the house with him, but his brother did not participate in the goods, as he got his meals at the Anchor Hotel. The R.M. nonsuited the plaintiff. M. J. PERSTON V. 11. TAIPARI. This was a claim for £ll 5s 2d, highway rates, due to the Kauaeranga Board. Sir Tyler appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Macdonald for defendant. In this case two others were joined with Taipara, but they had not. been served. Mr Tyler applied to have the plaint amended by striking out all the names but Taipara’s. Mr Macdonald objected to the amendment. The R.M said a§ this case would form a precedent it should be carefully brought. Perhaps it would be better to withdraw the case, and bring it afresh in a proper form, so that in the event of an appeal it should be on the broad principle, and not ou a technicality. It was arranged that in this case plaintiff should be non-suited with costs,

• £2 11s, and that the following should bo withdrawn :—Perston v. Te Aramona; same v. Tukaramina. R. GRAHAM V. G. W. TUCKER. Mr Tyler for plaintiff; Mr Macdonald for defendant. This was a claim for £33 5s for rent for the Imperial Crown Hotel, Tararu. The defendant paid £2 into Court (and payment of another £l9 was admitted), and pleaded a set off, a portion of which was disputed. The items in dispute were for use and occupation of two rooms at the hotel, and amounted to £l2. The Court gave judgment for plaintiff for £l2 over and above the amount paid into Court. C. CURTIS V. r. WHELAN. This.was a claim for £SO damages done by a cutter belonging to defendant coming into collision with the Grahamstown Wharf, and destroying a portion of it. When the case was called on it was stated that the matter had been settled out of Court.