R.M. COURT, HAMILTON. Wednesday.-(Before Mr H. W. Northcroft, R.M.)

Waikato Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2172, 10 June 1886, Page 3

R.M. COURT, HAMILTON. Wednesday. -(Before Mr H. W. Northcroft, R.M.)

Civil Cases. J. Chvwiori) v. Aurm it Wiuoht.— Claim fl Is lid for good-'. Mr O'Neill for plaintiff, and Mr Hay for defendant. This wa<« a case of disputed account. Defendant had been joined with one T.iylor, who was supposed t<> have been Ins partner in the road contract at Wh.itavvhata at the time the goods wete supplied, but who, according to defpudatit and Taylor himself, was only employed**, a weekly labourer. The summons was therefore amended. A considerable amount of e\idence was taken, and judgment was given for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, le^s the sum of 5s lOd, balance of an old account owing by Taylor. Plaintiff was mulct in £1 7s lid, Taylors °°Gammikv. Wyatt.— Claim £49 19s fld, money lent. Mr Hay for plaintiff, and Mr O'NeiH for defendant. From the evidence of plaintiff, it appeared that the parties had been gieat friends, and the plaintiff had at vauoui times lent money to the defendant. The defence was, in effect, a denial of the chief allegations of the plaintiff. The latter was unable to fix the dates upon wbioh the various loans were made, as he had lost his memorandum book when his whare was burned down. By his own showing, however, a largo portion of the total amount was lent more than six years ago, and its recovery was theiefore bairod by the Statute of Limitations. Defendant admitted that his wife had received money from plaintiff, but the only money he leeeived wa-> £1 10s, lent in two sums on different occasions. Defendants wife denied that she owed plaintiff anything, having repaid the only money borrowed. The larger sums in the account weie gifts to her, as plaintiff since he had removed from Hamilton to the Waitoa had made her house his home duiinsr his visits to Hamilton, and had not been charged for his board. They had been good friends up to a year ago, when she refused to let him marry her daughter. On the conclusion of the evidence, counsel addressed the court at considerable length and quoted various authorities. His Worship said the case seemed to him to rest on the evidence. On tho whole he was inclined to accept Mr Wyatts version as substantially correct, and would theiefore non-suit the plaintiff with costs. The Court then adj"ourned until 10 o'clock this morning, when the case of Crawford v. Jenkins will be called on.

Messrs Nelson, Moate, and Co., tea merchants, whose advertisement appears in our front page, have lately moved into more commodious premises at the corner of Victoria and Queen streets, Auckland, under the Theatie Royal. Mr Nelson has supervised the fitting up .and decoration of the shop, upon which much taste has been displayed. The decorations are in black and gold which give a solid, yet brilliant appearance to the premises. In the windows of the shop stand several Japanese vases fully six feet in height, which are quite an atti action in themselves. The enterprise and success of this firm has not b^n equalled in the colony Commencing business in Christchurch only about fi ve and a- half years ago, they had so extended their trade that there is scarcely a district in the colony where they are not represented. One of the strongest claims this firm have upon the pattona^e of the public is bused upon the care bestowed in the mixing and blending of their teas, this luanch being entirely under the immediate supervision of Mr Nelson, whose ability as a tea tasters is unquestionable. Nelson and and Moate also di-.pen.se with green and scented teas in their blending, the use of which is often made a means for disguising low grade teas. The continuely increasing demand for the firm's teas is evidence of the favour they are held in by the public, and no doubt the removal to more extensive and better situated premises will be rewarded by a \ cry extendod increase in their business.