THIS DAY.

Thames Star, Volume III, Issue 1678, 20 May 1874, Page 2

THIS DAY.

(Before His Honor Judge Beckham.) PHILIP LEMPEIEBE V. THOMAS FEBNANDEZ. Mr Dpdd for plaintiff; Mr Macdonald for defendant. This was a claim for £89 3s 4d on a promissory note. Mr Dodd wished to know if any defence had been filed. Mr Macdonald said there had not, simply because the address of the plaintiff's solicitor was so vague.that it could not be It was described as in Shortland. Defendant had given notice that he intended to plead the Statute of Limitations. Mr Dodd considered his learned friend Mr Macdonald had no locus standi in that Court until a defence had been filed. . The Court thought it would be competent, assuming the case to be undefended, for defendant to come into Court and say that it was so simply because is was not known where to lodge the defence. Mr. Macdonald had a further objection in the description of the solicitor. He made these objections for the purpose of getting an adjournment of the case to prepare a defence. He had only been instructed thia morning. Defendant had made a defence personally, but it was informal. Mr. Dpdd contended| that; hej had described himself properly as solicitor, Greystreet, Shorfcland—thatjit was sufficiently definite to comply with the rule of the Court. His Honor thought it would be better for Mr. Dodd to amend his declaration— his own address and plaintiff's, which was done. ) ' Mr. Macdonald said he would have to ask leave to amend the defence, which was as informal as an amateur could make it. : Mr. Dodd again took objection to his learned friend appearing, not having complied with the rule. His Honor thought the rule had been in a measure complied with by defendant. It was agreed to adjourn the case until next Court day, leave being given to amend the defence.