YESTERDAY.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2057, 7 August 1875, Page 2

YESTERDAY.

(Before W. Frasej^Esq., 8.M.). ;■ CIVHFSIDE. BINITEY_V"»3~NOI><JBi.SS. This case was concluded yesterday after a very lengthened'4heafing," the first particulars of which appeared, in our issue of yesterday. In addition we may state that Thomas Snodgrass, defendant's son, swore to returning the flour to Binney's store, and denied getting four bags of ■Lamb's flour at alt. JEIe also like hit father denied that certain intitials in the delivery book were his, though, he also pointed to some that were. Mr Binney's daybook (which was sent for ■ by_' Mr. Binney)'-.beinef compared by His Worship with the delivery-book, and the counsel on both aides having spoken, judgment was given for the plaintiff for £1 ss, the price of a bag of rice and a bag of bran, besides the :nioney paid into Court, and costs £2 8s 6di ■■

SAMUEL STEPHENSON V. DANIEL BEABDBN.

Claim—£7 11s 6d, for a promissory note. .

Defendant plesadfifcihat he was drunk at the time he signed the note. Plaintiff denied this, and said he was perfectly sober.., Judgment for plaintiff with costs, £2 4s. Time for payment feeing allowed. ' JAMES NOOTON V. HUGH VILHONB. Claim, £4 13s, for services.'" Is 6dp»id into Court. This was a case as !to whether plaintiff was entitled to recover from defendant, for time, money, &c, employed by him while acting as secretary or clerk at some meetings, re electoral roll, the plaintiff contending that defendant had employed him, defendant denying that he had done so. After hearing the evidence, judgment was given for the defendant. : •'- -