CIVIL SIDE.

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue 3569, 4 June 1880, Page 2

CIVIL SIDE.

KILGOUB V. TAIPAEI

■ Dr James Kilgour made a claim of £2 2s for medical attendance on the late Hotereni Taipari and his wife. He deposed—l make,the claim on the son, as

be was living in his father's house, and is now the administrator of his affairs. Judgment went by default. DALZIEL V. TILLEB. Mr Miller asked that the case might be adjourned, on behalf of the defendant. Mr Brassey appeared for plaintiff. Adjourned for a week at the request of the defendant. WISEMAN V. DONOVAN. In this case an agreemeat was entered into by the defendant to pay £1 per week. JAMES WILLIAMSON V. J. & A. BOBIHSON. Mr Miller appeared for the plaintiff; and said that this was a case of ejectment. Mrs Robinson said she occupied a house in Block 27. She had never paid any rent since her husband died. Mr Miller said that Mr Robinson had gone away and they did not know what had become of him. A. Fleming said he was agent for the plaintiff on the Thames. He knew that Mr Williamson had the. lease of the house at a rental of £8 per year. The house is worth £20 a year now. £20 in arrears was owing up to the 31st January last. Produced are the title deeds of Block 27. Plaintiff now requires possession of the property. Mrs Kobinson said she could not pay the renc. His Worship ordered the rent to be paid within five weeks, or defendant would have to give up the premises. HENRY 'WIIiLETS V. J. KELLAHEB. Defendant agreed to give, up possession of a house she was occupying without right or title, in fourteen days. HABT V. EDWABDS. Claim, £7 7s, for wages. Order made for £1 per week. AN IMPORTANT CASE. BEGISTBAB OF ELECTOBB V. H. B. JONES. This was a summons under the'Regis* tration Act. • Mr Miller appeared for the Registrar. Mr Brassey appeared for the applicant. The objection was that the applicant was not a resident in the district. Hugh Roberts Jones said he made a claim to be placed on the Electoral Roll, on the account that he was a resident in the district of Thames. He had been a resident for 12 years, in fact ever since the Thames was opened. During that time he had been engaged in mining speculations, from which, he obtained his living. He owned the Mamikau mine, and had done so since 1867. He applied for the license of the Army and Navy Hotel at Auckland on behalf of his wife. His wife resided in Auckland, and he lived at the Thames. He sometimes went up to Auckland. Some time since he went up the country by the doctor's orders. "He had property up in the Punui district. He never left the Thames with the intention of not coming back. His furniture was in his cottage on the Manukau mine. James Clarkin had charge of his furniture while he was away. He boarded at the Governor Bowen Hotel.

In cross-examination by Mr Miller: He did not reside in Auckland/ His usual place of residence was the Manukau hill. It was three years since he was in Punui. He had never stopped in Auckland during the last six months more than a fortnight or three weeks at a time. His family lived in Auckland. When he went to Auckland he stayed with his wife and family. There were three rooms in the cottage. His plans and papers were all there. The Army and Navy Hotel was leased by him. His wife carried on the business in bis absence.

A. J. Allom deposed he was Registrar of Electors. He wrote to Mr Jones, asking him to prove his claim. He did not attend in answer to that letter.

Mr Brassey objected to any evidence being given without the production "of the roll on which it was asserted Mr Jones' name was placed. Mr Allom said that "Mr Jones was on the roll tor City West, on a residential qualification. Mr Brassey asked the Court to take notice of his objection. - Mr Allom then said he could swear that Mr Jones was on the roll. To Mr Brassey : He had not seen the roll. He would swear that there was not another man named Hugh Roberts Jones in Auckland. His Worship decided that the applicant was not a resident in the Thames district, and had not resided here for six months, and he must therefore order the Registrar not to put his name on the roll, and the applicant to pay costs, but said that if Mr Jones wished to be transferred on to the Thames Roll he could do so by applying to the Registrar in* Auckland. Mr Jones replied that sucb was his intention. EEGISTBAR OF BLECTOES V. HONE NAHE. The applicant was in this case called upon to prove his claim. He claimed under freehold qualification, but the Registrar was not certain whether he was seized in severalty as the law required. The Court dismissed his application, as he was unable to prove his title. BEGIBTBAB OF ELeCTOBS V. BICHABD BBKTT. This name bad been placed on the roll by the Registrar of Electors, who finding that the elector had long been absent from the colony, now asked the Court to order that his name be struck off the roll. Order made accordingly, the defendant not appearing. BEGISTBAB OF ELECTOBS T. FBEDEBICK IiCCASKILL. This case was a similar one to the last, but the person was found to be resident out of the district, and the Registrar claimed to have his name struck off the Roll. As be did not appear, his name was struck off accordingly. For each of the above cases, Mr Miller appeared for the Registrar.