R. M COURT, CAMBRIDGE.

Waikato Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2066, 3 October 1885, Page 2

R. M COURT, CAMBRIDGE.

YiNii:m>.u.— (Hoff.M* Mr 11. W. Xoithen .ft, X.M , and Mr T. B. Lewi-, J P.) \V. Iti:ii)V Ti Rum — Cl.uin, t'JOlK'td, judgment summon- - The debtor was examined .is to his mean 4 . He hid icnt-> coming in, but "lily small amount-, not wurtli mentioning Ho ie/ei\pd £12 10-* .1 qnniter fio'ii (}o» eminent. — His Wor-<hip diew attention to the f.ict that l>y otbci ludgments obtained 'gainst tluMlobt«i In •* income fioni (!o\einment was moit^ lg.'d tv the extent of about 12 [iionth-> — The debtm said ttvn v <>nly got t.i ,i yoai fiom the lease i>f Maungatapu :iiid tl a >ear fioiii M umgataut hi. Ho ngiivl to ji.iy Mi Reid s claim by the end of Apnl next. — Ydjmuiied till uhe '30th Novembet — His Woiihip did not think it light to get these older* on the dobtoi'-. salary. Theie v.is a possibility of the Government "-topping it altogether. Hvumsox v. Tivtes, cViim 12s (id. Mr Dyer for pl.iintiiF, and Mr Keeping for defendant. A considerable .unount of evidence \v.i*> taken on both His Woi-hip le-tu'ved iudgnient till Tuesd.iy nioimn^at 11 o'dock. The c i..c of Roil: v. Rikkwooo was also adjourned till Tuesd.iy niornin?. Ch.uii ik Ti: Nil \uv .\ni> Vm. it Otheks v. Y. A. Wmr\KMt — Tnis was a claim made by the plainlilfs for £T'J 7s duo them a-. io>.ilty on ace writ of ti'iiber alleged to h i\a been f«'ll«l by tho di'ffiid.uit in block No. 3 j:, W.iotu Xoitli, ot \\ liii.li defend mt is les-ce. Mi (livshuu a|ipeared for the I>l iiutifls and Mi H.vv foi defendant. A l.tigo qn.i'itity of owdoncj was taken (in b it!) .sides, the ciso occupying? the cmut fni t!u* gr-atir put of the daj'. Tlio u\ ideii' u of tlia jilamtilfs went to show that this ui'inoy was due to fcliont, and th.it they were not aw.ue t h.it the di'fe'id mt liad .i^siffjipd his mteie-t in the 1 md to tin WaiLato Timber Company. Thoonjjin.il claim on account of ro\ ilty v\ n 41131 ~u, and liad bpi>n icduci'd b/ ontr.i to £7.) 7*, th^ muonnt claimed. Tin siibsl mti.ll dcfeuci 1 , which w.ii 10scived on arjouut of tin set-off I)miijj in excess of the jmi-dictii n of the conit, was th it money viry largely in eso'-s of th> claim h.id baen pud by tho ongmal neToti-ator-s of the piopeity. Mr Hay contended that the e\idence showed that the cisc was lvyonil the jinis diction of the co'lit. Tho cliun was for t'lol .">-, iind the plaintiff hid given ciedit for t*>l IS-, butthoie w. is nothing whatever to connect defondant with this ciedit, nnd hu had actually lefus' il to ackno,. lcdite the eiedit. This left tho cl urn at £1.51 ."is for winch sum the defeivlnnt might be leg illy, though not equitably liible, but which happened to be £31 ."in abuse the juii-dic tion of the court. Fuither, the ciedit was in four separate item.s giMin to tour sepirate plaintiir-). This ciuld not ha done, as the action was a joint one. Mr Gre«ham replied at some length, contending that the credit given had been agreed upon. .rail jjni'Mit went ng.tinst the pi lintift, foi wvnit of ]urisdn % tion, and th" e>--c was accoidingly ofrnok nut.— Costs t',l 12. At vi it i ruNiaito v. Y. A. Wnii vuni - Claim, £JO. Snno oounsnl appeuvd.— AFi Hay, for defendant, raided a preliiiun.it y obj'-ction, nnd Mr (tivslnm, foi pluutilt, on tho ad\ ice of th" com t, applied foi n. .id|ouiuiuout to fdii-idir tho ])laintiirs poiitiou, winch v.is gi.intt'd. dista to abide the ie-> lit.