RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.-Yesterday.

Thames Advertiser, Volume VII, Issue 1880, 1 August 1874, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.-Yesterday.

(Befoi'ejW. Eraser, Esq., E. 11.) JtfDGUENT JOB PLAINTIFF. — Edwin Binuey v. IMmuud Wade. Claim, £29 12s for goods supplied. Costs, £L 15.— J. Borthwick v. James Craig. The claim was for £30 16s BJ, money had and received. -Mr Macdonald for tlie plaintiff; and Me Brassey for the defendant.—Mr Vlacdonald opened the case, stating that the claim arose out of a sale of the plaintiff's property by the defendant, a portion of which was left in defendant's handsfor' payment of certain accounts.—Mr" Brassey said that he appeared for the defendant, and held a telegram from Mr Bothwick instructing Mr Macdonald. to withdraw the case, and he believed the only reason why the case was brought on was to get costs against the defendant.Mr Macdonald admitted that all the money was paid, but it was after the, action had been brought, and Mr Borthwick had told him (Mr Macdonald) to withdraw the action. He told .Vlr Miller of this. - Mr Brassey said that the cheque given by Mr Craig was cashed by Mr Borthwick before the summons was served, and he had to ask for costs.—His Worship said he would give costs to neither, but would make the case settled out of Court. Charles Judd v. Old Whact G.M.C. (Registbesd.)—This was a claim for £38 10s 6d for services and goods. £18 2s and £18s 6d had been paid into Court.— Mr Tyler for plaintiff and Mr Macdonald for the defendant.—Mr Tyler applied for an adjournment on account of the absence of a material witness, Mr McKeggie. He had informed Mr Macdonald that he would apply for the adjournment, and that he need not bring his witnesses. The claim was for foundrywork, and he observed that notwithstanding what he had said, a large number of witnesses were present from a rival foundry. The question at issue was in regard to foundry work, and as his friend had subpcened all the people in the trado here it was necessary for him to bring witnesses from Auckland to speak to the value of the goods and work, lie had issued a subpoena for Mr Masefield. The only object which the defendant could have in bringing up his witnesses was to . get costs.—Mr Macdonald Baid if hia friend was taken by surprise there might be something in what he said, but there was not. An offer had been made, by the defendant to submit the claim to the arbitration of two parties, and they would agree to pay a certain amount over and above the amount awarded. He opposed the adjournment, because his witnesses wore present, and the fact of Mr McKeggie, who had lieen subpcened not appearing, was no reason why an adjournment should be granted. Besides, he had one witness here, Mr Vickery, who may not be present next Friday.— vlr Tyler suggested that they should tako Mr Vickery's' evidence now.—Mr Macdonald declined.—Vlr Tyler then said that on next, Friday if Mr Vickery was not present they would go on with plaintiff's ease, and then consent to an adjournment until Mr Viokery could be present. He did. not know of the offer of arbitration alluded to, or he would have advised his clients to accept it. After some further argument, the adjournment was granted, plaintiff to pay the costs of the day, £3 Is. Case Adjourned.-J. T, C. Kogan v. •'rolden Bar G.M.C.: claim £17 2s, for professional services. Mr Macdonald asked 'to have the case adjourned for a ' week.—Adjourned accordingly.