R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4327, 26 January 1893, Page 3

R.M. COURT.

MABTBBTON.-TDEBDAY,

(Before Colonel Roberts, 8.M.)

CIVIL LIST,

Spittal v O'Dwyer. Claim j£l6, for wages due, Mr Bunny for plaintiff,

Joseph William Spittal proved the claim, Jndgmont with costs. Joseph J. Smith v Ashmoro, Mr 'Pownall for plaintiff. Claim ilfis, newspaper subscription, Judgment with costs 7s.

Same vJ. L, Thompson. Claim LG

19s Gd for printing and advertising, 'Judgment with court costs 21s and oounsol's feo 21s,

Same v Middleton. Claim L2 5s for advertising, Judgment with costs 6s.

Same v Arthur Phillips, Claim 128 Gd, for newspaper subscription, Judgment with costs 7«.

Pownall vE, Buckoridge. Claim, £6 7s for professional costs, Judgment with costs 10s,

Hooper and Co. v Mrs Grant. Mr Pownall for plaintiff; Mr Board for

the defendant. L, J, Hooper stated that tho account was never disputed, and the defendant had promised to pay tho amount, Had received a bill nearly six years ago as collateral security from Mrs Grant's son, The bill was worthless, as Grant tiled shortly afterwards, Did not provo in Grant's estate, or did not hold him responsible. Mrs Grant had promised to pay after her son filed, On the application of Mr Beard an adjournment was made at this stage until next Court day.

Williams v Knox, Claim L2, Mr Skipper appeared for tbo plaintiff and Mr Pownall for the defendant,

Mr Skipper said this was enaction for tho recovery of two pounds deposited with the defendant to hold until a dispute had been settled between Williams and another,

_ Mr Pownall submitted that the action was not maintainable, The facts of the wager were admitted by bis client, and as the money had been paid over to the stakeholder as a wager it was not recoverable under the Gaming and Lotteries Act of 1881,

Mr Skipper said it appeared a narduliipan.il not according to law Hint a person should hold money on ;rust and not hold the same after reviving notice not to pay to the other party.

Mr Skippor agreed to accept a nonsuit seeing that his Worship held that the acts and reference quoted were aunullcd by subsequent acts of the Now Zealand Parliament, J. J. Smith v, Q. Douglss.—Claim n 16n. Mr Pownall, for plaintiff, said that the claim against Mrs Douglas would bo withdrawn, and ho would proceed against the other defendant, who wasin attendance, Thero wiibno doubt that Dougals was aware that the advertisement was ordered, and as he was tho owner of the boardinghouse he must be held liable,

Mr Smith proved the claim. The order for the advertisement was given by Mrs Douglas, who was managing the house and was residing thero at tho time, He informed defendant of the alteration being made in the advertisement, Defendant replied that Mrs Douglas had made the alteration, He seemed to make no opposition, The advertisement appeared in the namo of George Douglas, _ Defendant desired that the advertisements be produced, Tho advertisements had been inserted after Mrs Douglas had left him, and ho did not consider ho was responsible for her debts.

By Mr Pownall; Mra Douglas took the house. Sometimes she paid the rents to Mr Feist and sometimes to witness,

The Court considered that defendant was aware of their existence and received the benefit of tho advertisements, Judgment would bo given for plaintiff with Court costa 83,

GBEYTOWN-WEDNESDAJT.

(Before Col. Roberta, R.M.)

Judgment for plaintiffs by default, with costs, was given in the following cases:-J, E, Hebloy vF. Faulkner, £1 Is; W.F.O.A. v(J. Giles, dE3 Is; W. O, Nation v J, P. Campbell, .£2 Us; same v. E. Stansficld, £1 15s; same v, Causton, £1 4s Id; Annio Pole v EopoAiM Moihana, £1 HsGd; G, Jones vEdserJG Us 6d; G, E. Stevens vW, Pole, £sl7s 4d. In the latter defendant was given a month in which to pay. In the following defended cases, judgment was given as follows;—G, JonesvJ.Eeed, Claim, £0 3s Gd. Judgment for plaintiff for £4 7s Gd. Costs, £1 7s. Mr Izard for plaintiff, and Mr Acheson for defendant.

Bunyard v Hamuera Mubupuku, Claim, £26 19s. Judgment for amount, with costs £4 l'Js 6d. Mr Acheson for plaintiff, and Mr Tate for defendant,

E. Bobs v. Rebecca lliaki, 'Claim £9 10s for breach of contract. Judgment for defendant with costs, Mr Acheson ioi plaintiff and Mr Tato lor defendant.

W.F.C.A.v.C.J. Butoh, Claim £29 lis 2d. Was adjourned on application of plaintiffs' solioitor. Mr Izard for plaintiffs and Mr Aoheson for defendant.

T, logley v, W. Armstrong. Claim £6 4s 2d, Mr Aoheson for plaintiff and Mr Tate for defendant. Adjourned on application of defendant's solicitor with costs,

A number of civil cases were settled out of Court,