RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.—Yesterday.

Thames Advertiser, Volume VII, Issue 1803, 2 May 1874, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.—Yesterday.

, (Before W. ERASER, Esq., E. 11.) Thomas St atoev. Matthew Vaug-han. —Claim, £50, amount of a promissory note.—Mr Macdonald for'the plaintiff, and Mr Tyler for the defendant.—Tho Court said to Mr Macdonald that he had '■ received a most extraordinary lottor this . morning from his client, which stated that, as tho question at issue was a question of law, he was sure he would decide it accordingly; but Vaughan's evidence was a tissue of falsehoods, as ho could : prove from Thomas Slator's books. His Worship also said that when in Auckland on Monday he had turned up some cases besides those reforred to by Mr Tyler. He had mislaid the memorandum, but it was clear that there was no case against ' the defendant.—Judgment for the de- ; fendant, with costs, £3 16s. Feeds:. Bennett v. Thomas Waits.— This was a claim for £15 4s. The case had been heard on the last Court day.— ' His Worship non-suited the plaintiff, with, costs £3 Is. A. Beucr v. J. Evans.-Claim,< £5 ><\ 6-f, balance of account. This claim was adjourned for a week on the application of Mr Brassey, who appeared for tho plaintiff. BAttIN BEOrHEES V. F. W. IlttEE. :-v —Claim, £l Is for gjods supplied. There : was no appearance for the defendant, : and judgment was given for plaintiffs, with costs, 19s. C. McDonald, v. G-. Boeman.— This was a claim of £20 for damages done to a garden by defendant's goat.Mr Macdonald appeared for plaintiff ;' ,J r Mr Tyler for defendaat.—Plaintiff wa9 examined, and deposed that he had a '• garden in the Tararu Creek. About Uhrisfcmas, he had impounded one of the goats which he had impounded on this occasion. It then belonged to Mrs Ouseloy.- The same goat came into Mci V < Borman's possession, and ,it, with another, did considerable damage to the garden. Witness gave : details- of" theuos destruction. Ho had a shop in which ho sold garden produce. He reokoned that about £3 J or on £4') of damage had been done. A"number'of vines and fruit-trees were destroyed.—Plaintiff. A: was examined and cross-examined at great length.—Annie MoDjnald, wife of the plaintiff;- Maryv McDonald,, her ; • daughter; and W. MoDjnald, his.son,-' were examined. For the defenoe, the plaintiff, J. B, dteedman, John Collin, F.. Benaett, and I. Brown were examined.— t£is V7orab.ip ' said' that had the ground : been Mr McDonald's own private property, he would have awarded to plaintiff the full amouat claiuuJ, but when a man took up a piece of land under miner's right on the goldtield, where people were' privileged to cum out their cattle, ic was his duty to keep it securely fenced, and not to have it like a trap for cattle. A man who kept goats was a nuisance to the . whole neighbourhood. He would allow £5 for damages, and £2 17s costs. ; ■ W. MuiiFoaD v. J. Howßtt.'-Claim £6 7s for a suit of olotnes.—ilr Tyler and Mr Dodd appeared for the plaintiff, : • Mr Brassey for the defendant.—After ° plaintiff and defendant had been ox-

amined, a nonsuit was recorded, with costs, £3 Is, on the ground that it waß a company debt, and not a personal debt of the captain.