MAGISTRATE'S COURT, TE AWAMUTU.

Waikato Argus, Volume VI, Issue 413, 23 March 1899, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, TE AWAMUTU.

Wednesday. (Before Capt. Jacksion, S.M.) J. R. Roche v. Henry Lewis.—This was a claim for the sum of £3 8s 4d, being half cost of erecting a boundary fence between plaintiff's and defendant's town sections. The evidence was all taken last January, when His Wonihip reserved judgment.—Mr Svvarbrick appeared for the plaintiff's attorney in New Zealand, Mr James Walton, and Mr Buckland for the defendant.—His Worship now gave a lengthy judgment, awarding plaintiff £2 ss,- and costs, £1 19s sd.

Friar, Davies and Co. v. Lngster.— Claim £2 5s 43. In this case Mr Gresham appeared for plaintiffs and defendant appeared in person.—Judgment for £1 4s and lis tostd.

Defended Cases —Friar, Davies and Co. v. Gbo. Harris, claim £9 2s 8d ; same v. D. Coe, claim £5 Os lOd ; same V. J. Moore, claim £2 15s lOd; same v. (t. Hoffman, claim £4 6s 3d; same v. Smich, claim £4 14s lid ; same v, F. Harris, claim £5 3s 6d. These were claims by the Te Awamutu storekeepers agaiust settlers at Te Rau-a-moa for goods supplied.—Mr Gresham appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr Swarbriek for all the defendants. In the case of F. Harris, the defendant had written admitting the amount, and judgment was given for the amount with costs. In the other cases Mr Swarbriek objected to the statement of claim as insufficient and improper, and claimed that his clients were entitled to amended particulars, the plaiutiffßtopaythecostofanadjournment. —The magistrate, whilst ruling that the particulars were bad, suggested an adjournment till 2 o'clock, and that in the meantime the plaintiffs should furnish further particulars with a view to a settlement and. to'save expenses. The court accordingly adjourned till 2 o'clock. On resuming, Mr Swarbriek stated that to simplify matters, and as his clieuts were not in a position to prove the items, they would admit the whole of the claims, but he strongly urged on the court that as the proceedings on the part of the plaintiff were entirely irregular, they were not entitled to any costs. After argument by the respective solicitors, the Magistrate gave judgment for plaintiffs in each case for the amount claimed, with court fees and 5s for the service of summons, and declined to allow solicitor's fees or witnesses expenses. Own Correspondent).