RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue 3611, 23 July 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY.

(Before H. Kenrick, Esq., 8.M.)

CIVIL SIDE. Judgments fob Plaintiffs.

Wiseman r. Rowe.—Claim, £5 10«, clot hes supplied, and costs. McCullough t. Howe.—Mr Brassey for the plaintiff.—Claim, £33 6s 3d, adrertising and printing. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, with costs.

William Wilkinson v. William Rowe. —Mr Miller appeared for the plaintiff, whose claim was £48 18s 6d, for work and services rendered. Judgment for amount claimed, with costs.

J. A. Miller v. W. Eowe.—Claim, £10 9s 7d, professional services. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs. Hart v. Cashell.-Claim, 14s. 6d, powder and caps supplied. Judgment for plaiutiff for 14s 6d, and costs. Wm. Wilkinson v. Langbridge.—-Mr Brassey appeared for the plaintiff.— Claim, £6. Judgment for plaintiff for amount, with costs.

Miller V; Carroll.—Mr Miller appeared for the plaintiff, whose claim was that'the defendant should give up possession of property in Haydon street, Grahamstown. —The defendant said that he had never paid any rent on the property, and had never received notice to quit.—The defendant was ordered to give up possession in' a week's time. W. Wilson v. Ahi Pepine.—Claim, £14 9s. The defendant said he should receive a sum of money for miners' rights at the end of the month, and he would then pay it.—Mr Brassey appeared for the plaintiff.—His Worship made an order for payment of the amount by the end of the month, Adjotjbned Cases. Marshall v. Tizard.-Mr Miller for plaintiff. Lichfield v. Creigh.—Mr Brassey for plaintiff. Smith v. Walker.^-The plaintiff applied for an adjournment, Granted. Foss v. Campbell. CASES WITHDBAWN. FBEBH SUMMONSES ; :;■•. *• .TO ISSUE.- ..■'": Foss v. Robinson.—Mr Brasaey for plaintiff. . < Foss v. Smith.—Mr Brassey for plaintiff. ; x Judgment Summoss. Rose v. Kikapaka.—Mr Dodd appeared for ? the plaintiff—judgment summons given in this Court in 1876. Mr Puckey deposed he knew the defendant. A sum of money had been paid to him through the office, as rent for the Paeroa block at Ohinemuri. This was within the last three years The money had not been received to the defendant, bat had gone to his creditors. Wilson was one of them. There were three natives amongst whom the amount of the rent was divided, and the defendant had a third of the money which amounted to #50. Witness could not say that any other sums of money had been paid to him..- „ „.-.. . ''.'"'.:.,.- .... .(.,..-. His Worship said he could not make an order on the evidence adduced. He would adjourn the. case until the 6th August. ■■-. '-;;- *- ■''■'■■ ' '■•■■ :• ' '■" ' -i-; '•■■' Defended Case. ; MOOBE V. MABTEB. In this case Mr Miller appeared for the plaintiff. The action was for the recovery of the maintenance of a child. Catherine ■ Moore said that the defen*. dant's wife when on her deathbed sent for her and asked her to take charge of the child. She consented to do so. The defendant and wife used then to live at Newton, Auckland. Nothing was said at the time about payment for the keep of the child. She kept the child for 44 weeks and five days, and clothed and fed it. The child was between two and three years old. She considered 10s per week a fair and reasonable sum to charge. The defendant has recently obtained the child. When they found the defendant was determined to take the child away her husband gave him the bill for the same amount as now claimed. He then said "he would pay it in two or . three months," but his wife said " she would go down to her father and get the amount." He had not paid the money. Adeline Harms gave evidence to the effect that the.child was properly taken oareof. Her evidence was mainly corroborative.

Wm. Moore said he was plaintiff in the action. The amount claimed for the cost of the child had not been paid. His evidence was also corroborative.

To the defendant—The servant was kept expressly to mind the child, The child has got more clothes than when defendant brought her to the Thames. Frederick W. Marter said, one reason why he wished to have the girl back was that it was allowed to run about the streets and associate with everyone. The child was only a visitor, and he did not •ay anything about paying for the keep ef the child. ;:r': ■„, ) .:;"'■-:■/. ■ \ 'r,■-.}."' ■; His Worship said the defendant had neither equity nor justice on his side nor the law either, and he should make, an order fdr the full amount claimed, £22 6s with costs £3 Ids. MCCULLOTJGH V. BOiWE. Mr Braasey, in this case called Mr Adam Porter, who deposed that William Howe received an amount of £200. He knew that tho Finance Committee of thd County Couoeil passed a voucher for £200, which he believed Mr Eowe received. ' ...'■. Mr Miller asked that judgment sum* mons be issued against the defendant in the other cases on the same grounds. His Worship said summons would be served in the same order as brought before the Court.

Court adjourned