RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume XIII, Issue 4337, 24 November 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY. (Before H. Kenrick, Esq., R.M.) JIAMES KIIiGOUE V. JOHN MAHONEY. Claim, £2 15s for rent.

Mrs Mahoney appeared for her husband, and denied being a tenant.

His Worship advised defendant to give notice of abandonment of the tenancy and possession of the premises, if she would be clear of further rent.

Judgment for 17s 6d.

amount with costs,

Judgments foe Plaintiffs

Rosemont G.M. Co. v. C. H. Wilson. —Mr Miller for plaintiff and Mr Campbel for defendant, Claim, £9 11s Bd, calls; costs, £1 Is 6d. Execution stayed till next Court day, to enable a cross action to be brought.

Same v. E. J. Thorp.—Claim, £7 16s Bd, calls; costs, £1 7s 6d.

Same v. John Maginn.—-Claim, 18s, calls; costs, 7s.

Same v. Peter Norbury.—Claim £L 18s 4d, calls. Costs, 7s. Same v. James Hart.—Claim £1 18s Id, calls. Costs, 13s.

Same y. Wm. Cumming.—Claim £25 13s 4d, calls. Coats, £2 7s.

Same v. George Green.—Claim £15, calls. Costs, £1 9s 6d. Same v. J. W.Thorp—Claim £1 3s4d, calls. Costs, 7s. •

Same v. C. Faulkner.- Claim £3 16s Bd. Costs, 19s.

Same v. James Potier.—Claim settled except costs. Judgment for 8s costs. Same v. John Todd.—Claim settled except costs. Judgment for 20s costs.

Wm. Carpenter v. Ema te Aouru.— Claim £46 16s, dishonored P.N. Costs, £2 178 6d. Mr Miller for plaintiff. Joseph Clark, as assignee in the estate of Hewin Bros., v. Thos. Laughlin.—Claim £20 5s 3d, goods. Costs, £1 6s.

Jtfseph Clark, as assignee in the estate of Hewin Bros., v. Josiah Mallett.— Claim, £5 19s lid, goods, costs 12s.

R. N. Smith v. Hugh Farrelly.-Claim, £4 14s. Judgment summons. Defendant stated he was earning 7s 6d per day. Mr Smith said he had offered defendant work, half wages* and half towards the debt to fill up idle time. Adjourned for a month, defendant to do his best in the meantime and if idle to s work for Mr Smith.

Withdrawn.—R. N. Smith v. Thomas Johnson. The wrong person was served.

Defended Case,

James Mann v. Honi Nahe and Hori Matene.—Claim, £49, balance of contract. •—Mr Miller for defendants.—Plaintiff having given evidence, Hone Nahe de posed that there was no specification. Witness said he had better get an architect, but plaintiff replied there was no need for that, that; witness could be architect, and that if an architdct was obtained be would not do it for the money agreed upon. The house was to be made inhabitable. The kitchen was extra. All the fixtures in the house were included in the contract. £15 was agreed on for all extras. £45 was never mentioned between them.—Hori Matene and Mr Guilding, Native Interpreter, also gave evidence.—His Worship said that the only agreement was to build a house 33 by 22 at Kirikiri according to plan, nothing else being given as a guide ; there was do specification. It was to be done for £120, plaintiff to find the labor and defendants material. Plaintiff understood this simply meant the shell, but defendants say the house was to be rendered 'habitable. He thought it was to be marie fit to live in. His Worship then went over .the account, selectiug what he considered extras, which amounted to £30 14s. Against this there was a set off of £13 5- 4d. This, however, was reduced by £3 10s charged for liquor, which defendants could not recover. The contra account was reduced thereby to £9 15s 4d, leaving a balance of £20 14s Bd, for, which judgment was given i Eosemont G-.M.Co. v. Edward Gibbs. —Claim, £1 18s, calls. Mr Gibbs said that he had entered into an agreenftnt with Mr A. Mackay, I one of the original prospectors, that Mackay was to pay the first three calls." His Worship said that Mr Gibbs being a registered shareholder was responsible, and he could have his remedy against Mackay afterwards for breach of i agreement. Judgment for amount; costs, 7s. John Watson t." James Jobe.—Claim, £16 Bs, for bandsman's uniform of late Thames Scottish Battalion. Mr Buddie for plaintiff, Mr Miller for defendant.

John Watgon deposed he was Major of the Thames Scottish Battalion. Defendant was furnished with uniform and feather bonnet. He also acted as a Bandsman in the capacity of drummer, and he was famished with bandsman's uniform including leopard's skin. They were furnished at the expense of the corps Did not resign his commission. There was a meeting of the disbanded corps. His object in calling the meeting was to get a committee appointed to take the onus of winding up the Company off'his handa. It was agreed to collect the articles and dispose of them. The Committee sold the instruments on their own responsibility. In answer to a question he said he saw no fairer way of disposing of the uniforms than allowing the meu to keep them, but ther& was no resolution to that effect.. They 1 are suing for the band uniform, but Jobe will be placed on an equality with the others under any circumstances. Witness failed to find any evidence of his having returned one uniform.

Mr Miller stated th' ir contention was that the meeting mentioned decided that all members should be allowed to keep their uniforms.

James Jobe deposed—As drummer he had a uniform, and when he obtained it he gave up his private uniform. Had no other uniform at ihe time of the disbandment. The bonnet and apron form part of the uniform. He repiesented a drummer of the 93rd Highlanders. At the meeting of the company, Major Watson said every member should keep his uniform. The resolution was agreed to, and the uniform were being worn. If you go to the Alburnia or anywhere you will see them underground (laughter). Never heard of anyono else's, uniform;, bejng demanded. If the meeting had resolved that the members returned their uniforms, he would have given bis up. Cross examined—Where did you see the uniform of the drummer of the 93 Highlanders ? At a review at Dartmoor. And what does he do with it P Wears it (laughter). Captain Small deposed that if Jobe was in his Company as drummer, and came on parade without the apron, he would consider he was not dressed.

His Worship said the Volunteer Act provides that a meeting may be called which may decide the manner the pro-

perty of the Company .shall be disposed of.' Major Watson suggested and the meeting tacitly agreed that the men should be allowed to retain their uniform!. No exception was made. If it was intended to exclude the drummer's uniform it should have been so stated. Judgment for defendant.