RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HAMILTON. Saturday, Norember 6. (Before W.N. Searancke Esq, R.M.)

Waikato Times, Volume X, Issue 542, 9 November 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HAMILTON. Saturday, Norember 6. (Before W.N. Searancke Esq, R.M.)

■* Thomas Macffarlane y Ba^er.— Claim '£6 Mk. " "Judgment for amoutit. rFhWrnas'-Miit-ffiHah^ v J Slater.—GlaW *£8 '7a. Ms; TVfr Ha/~for plaintiff! r* Mr Sl^tpr said. the money was due,~ but wanted 4ime> he had beew ft loug^t.rae ant of work. Judgment for amount And costs. Thomas t M adden. — Claim Bs, Mr Hay * for -plaintiff. • Mr Midden appeared for himself. -He objected to the case* being' heard, as "the 'summons was illegal, and he ha4,had no demand for the money from Mr Hay. .. - 1 Mr Hay stated that two separate demands had been made bjkhimself. Mr Madden said that Mr (VNeiH"' had tendered the money. Case struck out. Butler t Hammond. — Claim £5 4's, Mr Madd<*n*for plaintiff, Mr Hay lor defendant • TBis'.wiis an interpleader .case, „ Cqnfliai)fe Jladdocjc depose 1: I am in the A C. Force, under the authority of a warranty warrant produced) pi October, 23rd, T Went to Mr Butler's , shop and made a note of goods considering that; would be -sufficient to corer the ■claira. I' was tendered the amo&nt of • the Wtirrant and therefore returned the;' goo^s ,to ' tho trustees. I. saw Botler. , v , '\ » Mr UeJling deposed : lorn a General Agent in Hamilton West. J hate' been appointed agent for some persona called trustees in the estate of Butler. Mr Madden here tendered a deed of assignmßttt. ' - * - ' ' '.1 Mr Bay objected as there was no witness of signature, and. till th«rq { was a witness, i^ was no.clee4 bnt simply apiece of paper, he continued to state as there was ho attesting witness the caste ought to fall to the ground. 'Mr Madden said as it was a sealed deed, it was better than a deed witnessed. The Court remarke^'that its miad wa« doubtful and would like the argument to proceed. Mr Madden quoted from " Smith on .Contracts" to prove that the deed could be put in evidence and the case could pro* ceed. Mr Hay in reply said he totally denied everything his learned irietid had said, and referred to "Taylor on Evidence" and enlarged upen the law set down. The. Cour.t had considerable doubt in giving decision, and refused the deed without the asserting witness. Mr Geliing's examination was continued Mr Hay objected to the examination continuing. Examination was. continued by the ruling of tho Court I waa present 1 when Haddock Seized the property. Mr Butler - was present He eaid that Haddock had seised the property belonging to his trustees.' The Court said Mr Madden mutt prove - the deed before ho could proceed. -Mr Madden applied J for an adjournment •Mr Hay objected to the adjournment, as it was through the negligence of the trustees. A long agrument here took place between the legal gentlemen. The Court said it was not' prepared to grant an adjournment. Case dismissed.

W Steele v the Kirikiriroa Highway Board.^-This was an appeal under the 6th section, of the Highway Boards Empower, ing Act, 1871. . The plaintiff alleged that ths land known as the Piako Swamp Company's Land had been rated ". unfairly andvincorrectly," acd claimed' a reduction of the rate to auclv an amount as to the Resident Magistrate, .might seem proper. Evidence .was rgoue iatp ; as to- .the, " value to ssenU n of the property, but no. witness seeiued able to give-an- absolutely definite statement as the,, land ia not sofficiently~ well known to enable a -correct opinion to be. farmed. His Worship eon--aidejed t]hat the real question. at issue was , the Rvalue to ael} " of the lauds in question and reduced .the rates from £1 to 12a 6d., C3osts ; to the amount of £4 Is were.allovye4 against the Board as onefifth of the. amount of original assessment' had been struck off, Mr Whitaker appealed for Capt "Steel© and Mr Hay for the Kirikiriroa Highway Board. , A i