R.M. COURT, CAMBRIDGE.

Waikato Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 2012, 30 May 1885, Page 2

R.M. COURT, CAMBRIDGE.

Friday. -|B«f ore Mr H W. Xorthcroft, R.M., and Messrs U. W. Rusdell and A. Clements, J.P.] Cl\ 11, 0 WS A.hhkh\, Hoik Thompson 1 . — Mr Keesing, who appeared for plaintiff, asked foi an adjournment to July.— Mr Hay, for defendant, asked to h.nethe case htruck out.— Mr Keesing explained that the necessity of .in adjoin iiiiiunt was imniK to the delay in settling the Maung.»taut.iri c.iso.—Adjourned till July 21th. Hu\un \. II O. Cvrhick.— Mi Dyer foi plaintiff. Atljinnncd till nu\t coiat d.iy on .ipjilic ition of plaintiff Wills \nd SoirrrH v. Mxinwwuv. — Adjourned on the application of Mr Dyei toth<>24th July. Wilson ttitos. %. W. Dim-i.— Claim, I'l His (id.— Mr Keesing foj plaintiff-.. Judgment for amount, with costs, £1 3>(. R. KniKwoon v. Si vMiK\.— Claim, £2 8-,.— Mr Dyer for plaintiff.— Judgment foi amount and costs. Wilson Bkos. v. S. Bright.— Judgment for the amount confessed. B\me v. H. W. Buck.— Claim l'Js (id, bahmce duo on account of coats. Judgment for amount, and costs 12s 9d. K. KniKwoon v. Gko. Jkcklin.— Claim £3 ( J-<«)d. Mr Dyer for pl.vmtiff. A portion of this claim was incurred on account df " lefreshments," entered m the bill of particulars as " sundiies."— The bench took exception to the "sundries," as theie was a provision in the Licensing Act which diew the line a*, bai refreshments, unless such refreshments weio taken nt ineaN. The plaintiff's accountant was unable to tell what proportion of tlio hundues weie taken at meal*". (i. T. Nokhh \. Duncan CvMrnELL.--Claim £2. Mr Dyer foi plaintiff, and Mr Kw.sing for defendant. Judgment for plaintiff foi amount, and costo £3 7f> Od. THE ITKKKUUA HOHsE CASKS. The cases of Onepu Tairi v. W. J. Huntor, and others v. W. J. Hunter, came on ti«r heanng. Mr Hay for plaintiffs, and Mr Whitakor for defendant. Mi Whitikei applied for an adjourn ment on the giound that Mr Hesketh, of Auckland, had been engaged for the defi'iice, but had bc>en unable to attend that il.i>. Due notice had been served on the plaintiffs that an adjournment would bo a-.ked foi. After souu 1 di-cussum on the part of counsel re costs, the ca«es wore adjourned to the 18th June next, with costs foi the plaintiffs £11 r»s2d. This was all the business.