CIVIL SIDE.

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue 3557, 21 May 1880, Page 2

CIVIL SIDE.

Judgment foe Piaintiffs.

H. T. Rowe v. H. Kgapaka Whamanga. —Claim, £21 10s. Mr Brassey for .plaintiff. Costs £4 17s. Robert Graham v. William Rowe. —Claim, £22 10s. Mr Mil'er for plainfff. Costs £3 16s. William Bobbett v. F. S. Lumsden.— Claim £10 8s 3d. Mr Mller for plaintiff Costs, £M7s.

James A. Miller v. William Scurrah. — Claim £9 (professional services.) Costs £19s. James A. Miller v. Thomas Millitt.r— (Judgment confessed.) Clfim £14 11s, costs 15s. Samuel Swarden v. James Holmes.— Mr MiUer for plaintiff. Cls "m £2 17b 6d, goods, costs £113s 6d. Captain T'Uep v. Geofge Dalziel.— (Judgment confessed.) Mr Brassey asked that execution might be stay i pending the waiting of a counteraction. —Mr Miller objected to this course. Application granted. William Wilson and Co. v. Alexander Bethune,—Claim £2 9s sd, costs 17s. Mr Mi'"ier.for plaintiff. RELEASING. Mr Miller applird for a re-hearing of the case of R. May v. J. W. Walters, on belialf of the defendant. He said that the case had come on, and was heard on a day which was not the ordinary Court day. Ho believed that the defendant, for whom he appeared, had a good defence, but through adjourning the case the days had become mixed. Fresh evidence was forthcoming. . Mr Brassey objected to this course, as he said that the only ground for granting the application would be that Mr Miller had failed to appesr. The Bench remarked that the case was heard before Messrs Tizard and Murray, Justices, and it would not be fair to them to grant a trial before him,- in order to endeavour to v set their Mecision. The Bench would refuse the application. He thought another hearing should be held before the same Justices as previously. tlr Mil'er said he was not like his friend,-who could get a~ nipgistrate any time.. Application refused, with pei jaisaion to make an application for rehearing before Messrs Tizard and Murray, J.s P. Defended Cases. J. MAEBHA.Lt V. OLITKE CROMWELL. Mr Dodd for defendant, Mr Miller for plaintiff. Mery Cromwell said her first husband was Mr O'HaUoran. She never received any goods after her husband died that she did not pay for. There was a sale yesterday of Mr O'Hallorau's property. The property fetched between £10 and £20. Sac had been married to Mr, Cromwell about a fortnight or three weeks. She had never had a penny of the. money due to her on hi-r husband's death. She was wiping to. pay what she owed. To Mr Dodd—Mr O'Halloran died about five months a<»o. I never authorised any person to go on credit for me. I always paid cash dovin. Ke-examiiied by Mr Miller. My husbrnd had £0 ready cash when he dkd, besides making money out of what she hi d. To the Bench—l paid some of my husband's debts to the amount of about £10./ Thomas Batching said be was manager for Mr Marshall' at 'Sbortland. Sf? O'flalloran owed Mr Marshall an amount of i's 2s 3-|d before he died. Mrs .Rafferty and Mrs Carnell obtained o-her goods o.i behalf of Mrs Cromwell: They have had the goods. Mrs O Hallor; :i agreed to pay the amount off by instalments. The debt has never been denied, until to-day. To Mr Dodd—l served the goods myself. . Oliver Cromwell, being sworn, said ho married Mrs O'Halloran. He was aware that when he married her he married her debts toe, but he did not know that there were any debts. He had' paid a lot of debts of one kind and another due by the late Mr O'Halloran. He did not see why he should have to pay for a .dead man's debts.

The Bench remarked that the evidence of the two women would be necessary.

Ho should therefore "rant the adjournment of the case uufcil two o'clock". On resuming, a judgment for plaintiff was given.