MAGISTRATE'S COURT, TE AWAMUTU.

Waikato Argus, Volume V, Issue 329, 18 August 1898, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, TE AWAMUTU.

Wednesday. (Before Captain Jackson,

(S.M.)

Civil Cases.—Hunter v. Prince : Claim £2 2s 6d. Mr Swarbrick for plaintiff. Judgment in default for amount claimed and costs, £1 9s.—Lewis v. Turner : For goods supplied, £lO. The sum of £3 had been paid into eourt. Judgment for balance due (£7) and costs, 15s.—Williams v. Matthews : Claim £B, for goods supplied. Judgment in default for amount clahned and costs, £1 2s 6d.— Peckham v. Page : Claim for bread and jam, lollies, oranges, etc., amounting to £3 6s 7d. Judgment for amount aud costs, 6s.—Aubin v. Meredith : The costs in this case, which was adjourned from last court, were settled at £1 0s 6d. Mr Gresham appeared for plaintiffs.—Dr. Rowley v. Garmonsay : Claim £2 10s, for medical attendance. Mr Swarbrick appeared for defendant. Adjourned for one month in order to have the plaintiff's evidence taken at Otahuhu. Interpleader Summons. William Bond in Friar Davies and Company v. Stephen Bond : In this case Mr William Bond claimed a quantity of furniture in a house occupied by Stephen Bond, which had been seized under distress by the plaintiffs in the action. Mr Swarbrick appeared for the claimant and Mr Gresham for the distraining creditors. Mr Wm. Bond produced the probate of his father's will, bequeathing all his personal estate to him, and also produced receipts for fire insurance thereon in his own name. He stated that the propertywas his under his father's will, and that he had never parted with it. Mr Gresham, in cross-examination, produced letters that had passed between the witness and Mr Gresham, who was then acting as his solicitor. Mr Swarbrick objected to the production of these ments as inadinissablc, but as they were immaterial, he waived the objection. Witness further said in cross-examina-tion, that he first heard of the goods being seized on the night of the 18th July, and came the next day to Te Awamutu to protect his property. For the defence, Mr Gresham called Stephen Bond, who said the goods belonged to the last witness, although he had pxecuted an assignment of them to his wife. He did not remember making a declaration about his father's estate, and believed he had not done so. Mr Gresham was proceeding to refer to various proceedings of Stephen Bond, when he was stopped by the Magistrate, who pointed out they did not effect the matter before the court, and said that this was not a court to rake up things about people. The Magistrate gave judgment that the goods distrained on were the property of William Bond, and awarded £32s lid costs against Messrs Friar, Davies and Company, the distraining creditors. In the cases of alike interpleader, in Ogle v. S. Bond and Price v. S. Bond, it was agreed that this judgment should be accepted and that the distraints be withdrawn, the distraining creditors to pny the costs of the summonses.