RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume III, Issue 1669, 24 April 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY. „ (Before W. Fraseb, Esq., Warden.) CIVIL SIDE. Judgment toe Plaintiffs. Lempriere v. Phillips—Claim of £3 Hi 4d, with costs £1. Goldwater t. Barty £27 3s 6d, costs £2. - ■.'■ '-' . Edward Beere v. Te Hira—Services £6,costs £2 4s. Adjoubned Cases. W. Creighton v. Bottommore—Adjourned by consent to 7th May. Arderri v. Newby—Adjourned to 22nd May. Defended Cases. Slator r. Vaughan—This was a claim for £37 on a promissory note. Mr Macdonald for the plaintiff". Matthew Vaughan, stated—A William Thompson was a partner of mine some time in business. I had dealings with George Slator during our transactions the promissary note was given him. The endorsement on the back of the note was Slator's.

Mr Tyler took objection as to the obliteration of the stamp, there being 10, 68 written across it, not the full month and date, also that the stamp was only initiated. . : ;

His Worship ruled that the obliteration was sufficient, and that it was a case for the Stamp Commissioners. Mr Vaughan, to Mr Macdonald, said— That the promissary note now presented was duly met by renewal with other accounts added. He did not know where Slator now was. The promissory note produced must have been mislaid, as it is not away with him to let paper float about. Thomas Slator, sworn- —I am plan tiff in this action, and am brother to George Slator. I brought my brother's assets, amongst which was this bill. I have not realized what I gave for the debts. I only made application for the payment through Mr Macdonald as I heard his property had been secured. Mr vaughan, recalled, said —I gave a renewed bill for the one produced. The affidavit produced is that given in satisfaction of the mortgage. When I met the plaintiff some time since at the Wharf Hotel he never said a word about the bill till I was served with the summons. I did not know that the bill continued in existence till I was served with * summons.

Mr Tyler took some technical objection against the claim advanced. ti is Worship said that the case was one of dry law. He unfortunately had bad experience in bill cases—in fact if there were degrees as to experience in bill matters he would be pretty high up. Judgment reserved. , BENKETT V. WELLS.

Mi;. Tyler for the defendant; Mr. Mac&onald for the plaintiff. f 'This was a claim for £15 14s in lieu of house accommodation. Mr. Macdonald said that the contract with the plaintiff was—so much a week and a house to live in. He had left the defendant's employ, and now sought damages, in the shape of recoupment of the value the house would have been to him. ;

Mr Tyler held that the case was one of work and labor, the amount claimed was at the rate of 6s per week. His Worship deferred judgment for a week, and would re-hear the ease on the Bth of May ifcepunsel wished. The Cova^Bajourned.