CIVIL SIDE.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3866, 20 May 1881, Page 2

CIVIL SIDE.

In the following cases judgment was giveu for the plaintiff with costs:— Buchanan v. McGeehin: Claim, £2 15s, rent of premises at Paeroa, and costs, 19 s. - James Xilgour v. Laird: Claim, £4 (A. telegram had been received from defendant admitting the liability but assigning the lease for the debt.) Judgment for plaintiff for amount and costs, Bs. W. Wilson and Co. r. James George: (hum, £5 5s 2d, drapery supplied to defendant and wife, and costs, 11s.

JUDGMENT SUMMONS. ■„ J. : OSBOBNE V. J. WOODS,

Claim. £518s.

No appearance of defendant. This case had been adjourned from last court day to enable defendant to explain how he bad expended £250, received by him since Christmas from a tribute at Ow.haroa.

His Worship ordered the amount to be paid in a fortnight or that the defendant suffer one ra uth's imprisonment.

HOBIE V. J. WOOD, Claim, £6 16s 3d.

The was a similar case, and His Worship made the same order as in the last case.

Mr Miller represented the plaintiffs in both cases.

The Cup Case. MCKEE T. DOUGLAS.

Claim, £30, value of Cap won in rifle competition by plaintiff and detained by defendant, and damages. Mr Dodd appeared for defendant, and Mr Brassey for plaintiff. Mr Brassey stated the facts of the case. The cup find been presented to the Thames Kifle Hangers by Dr Andrews. At the end of the 3rd match, McKee was leading by 9 points, and Lieut. Douglas came to him and asked, him to give, up his claim to the cup, saying that two small cups had been substituted. McKee refused, holding (hat he was entitled to the £25 cup. He won the fourth match and they endeavored to foist a small cup on him, which he refused to accept. Mr Dodd admitted, the possession of the cup, but Bnid it had" been withdrawn from competition by Dr Andrews himself. It. T. Douglas deposed-I.am Captain of the Thames Kifle Rangers Some time ago a Dr Andrews presented a cup to the corps, to be fired for under jbbo conditions I now produce. The cup was handed to me by Dr Andrews. The cup was fired for three timjM in cbnformance with these condition s/rol McKee, ihe plaintiff, standing at the head of the list. The fourth match was not fired. The cup was withdrawn in consequence of a letter received from Dr Andrews to tbat effect. (Letter produced in, Court.) The Company passed a resolution suspending the match, in accordance with that letter. I do not know whether plaintiff waa present on that occasion. The next match fired was to complete the aggregate of scores for the four matches, but was to entitle the winners to the substitue cups. I did not tell MeKee the fourth match was for the substitute cups, but he was present ; on parade three times when the matter was announced. McKee on one occasion said he would take £15. Andrews was dissatisfied that more men did not compete for the cup. No fresh i conditions had been made. Ido not know ! the value of the cup* I recollect telling McKee he was very selfish to ask for £15, as Dr Andrews wanted it fired for again under fresh condition's. The cup produced is the substitute cup won by. Si mpson, the second highest scorer. It is worth £3, and the cup won by McKee was worth £4. I received a letter from Mr McKee, through Mr Miller, threaten* inglegal proceedings, Plaintiff nonsuited, each party to pay own costs. [The balance of the evidence will be publsihed to-morrow.]