DISTRICT COURT, HAMILTON. Tuesday, 20th July. (Before His Honor District Judge Macdonald.) In Bankruptcy.

Waikato Times, Volume XV, Issue 1258, 22 July 1880, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT, HAMILTON. Tuesday, 20th July. (Before His Honor District Judge Macdonald.) In Bankruptcy.

hi re David Elliott.— Mr W. M. Hay for the bankrupt. Application for a final order of discharge. Granted.

Civil Cases. Whitnker v. O'Halloran. — Judgment summons ; claim, £28 9s. Mr O'Neill for the judgment creditor. Adjourned till next Court day. J. S. Buckland v. J. Gr. Berry. — Claim, £22 Is 3d. Mr Hay, for the plaintiff, stated that the defendant had the means of paying. He had heard so from defendant's agent. He had subpoenaed the defendant to show this. He was not present, and he wished to know whether he (Mr Hay) should go into the box to prove that since the debt was contracted defendant had received money. His Honor said he did not like to give judgment on secondary evidence, but as the defendaut had had an opportunity afforded him of beina: present to make i his own explanation he could not be I blamed for giving judgment on the apparent fact 3 of the case. Mr Hay was then put into the box, and deposed to what he had stated. His Honor then gave judgment for the amount of the debt and costs, the money to be paid on 4th August. James Buckland v. H. Carter.— Claim, i £26 16s, for goods supplied in 1577. Mr O'Neill appeared for the plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed, and costs £7 Is. Hay v. Berry.— Claim, £29 2s id. Mr O'Neill for the plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs. Strange v. W. Moon.— Claim, £ Mr O'Neill for the plaintiff Adjourned till next Court day. Dickeson and Burnett v. Shirley.— Claim, £43 7s 4d, balance of P. N. and interest. Mr O'Neill for the plaintifis. Judgment for plaintiffs, with co^ts. Vincent aud Wright v. Kay.- -Claim, £24 3s 6.1. Mr O'Neill for the plaintiffs and Mr Hay for the defendant. There was a set off for £10 19s overcharge, aud goods returned. After some argument, r Mr Hay said the matter could be much bettor dealt with by arbitration, as every item was likely to be disputed. Mr O'Neill -said it was a very simple case. He called, Thomas Vincent, one of the plaintiffs, who deposed that the goods sued for had been delivered. The plaintiff had made a claim for -G 1 for goods returned. Judgment for £17 los Gd, with costs £5 11s.