R.M. COURT, CAMBRIDGE. Friday,-(Before Mr H.W.Northcroft-R.M.)

Waikato Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2197, 7 August 1886, Page 3

R.M. COURT, CAMBRIDGE. Friday,-(Before Mr H.W.Northcroft - R.M.)

x X < CIVIL CASKS. '■ Asher v." Hotk Thompson.— Adjourned for four weeks, un the application of Mr Dydr for pMntiff .

•". Hfiwtrr Y. Hoani Taipua. —Mr Whitaker for plaintiff. The clerk <if the couit re»d the evidence of defendant taken at Wanganui, before Mr Robert Ward, K.JkLr- The defence waa that a portion of Mr Hewitt's claim was for drinks supplied and consumed in the hotel. About £13 of the claim might have been for money advanced.—Mr Whitaker, referring to the defence, said that the drinks had been supplied prior to the passing of the Licensing Act, 1881, and the debt could not be considered as coming within the scope of the said Act. The Act of George IV., commonly krioWn as the Tippling Act, was repealed by the Act of 1881, and this debt Jiacl .been contracted during the interregnum that existed between the two Acts, lie would request His Worship's attention to the point raised. — The Court held that the Section (133) was good, and barred recovering for any liquor supplied either before or after the Act was passed. Edward Hewitt deposed : He was an b/)telkeeper carrying on business in Cambridge. He knew Haoni Taipua, who was a v isitor at his house, and had lent him monoy and suppled goods as stated m the bill of particulars. The amount was still due and owing.— Mr Whitaker said the case was peculiar owing to the absence of the defendant, who was not here to cross-examine the witness. Would the Court put any questions and then allow him to re-examine. — The Court aa»d the defence denied having received any good*. The Court presumed the goods in this case meant liquors, and if defendant had objected to the term " goods "in the bill ot particulars, his objection would have held good. The plaintiff should prove the purchase of the " goods " and what they were. — Witness : Goods meant diinks .uid bottles, bulk stuff, taken away. Tiie goods were entered in a book from the slate. - -The Court said what was taken oft' the premue* could be recovered, but what was consumed on t)je premises, with the exception of that got with his tuozU, could not be recovered.— Arthur 13 icli deposed that several of the items in the account were for bottles of liquor supplied.— Judgment for plaintiff £25, and £5 17* costs.

Bucklano v. McC.vxk.~£l7 9s on judgment summons. Mr < .Qyfcr 1 \sr wliintiff. Defendant, being sworn, said >f the case was adjourned for a month he could ggfc in money owing to him and pay. Ordered tv pay the amoant with 15s unstH ix^^ons mpatii, osin d>/Milt oftfe/nldiithTri iinf>risoninent.

W., Reid v. Haiicona Pakaba.— No appearance of plaintiff. Mr J, S. Master was mwovn as interpreter. Defendant said he had in* conversation with plaintiff fince last courtda^. He was willing t^aettle, could not do |u fill $he price of his.lap^; now being 1 > siib-aivtded* at Maungatautari was paid. There was n<it|iing settled about it,y^, SwWwoold-iiay in thr^e riiontln. -Ordetttd Accordingly with costs, 20s Od, or in default «ne month's imprisonment*

Booth and Roberts v. Harrison. — Judgment summons £8 030 3 t)d. Mr Dyer for plaintiff. Defendant was, examined, »nd offered to pay 10s a month. Mr Dyer took an adjournment to ne<t court day. Hitt'HKN v. Aknaboldi.— Clann 19s. Mr Dyer for plaintiff. Thomas L. Cox proved the debt, and his authority to act «s Hitchen's agent, Hitchen, being in kT cfebt, had Riven him orders on different people, including the defendant, who admitted his liability for 17j» Cd, and offered payment of that amount. Subsequently he refused payment, paying that Hitchen's had gone away owing money to various people, and that he (dufendant) had as good 3, right to pay money to them as to Co*. Afterwards he professed to have paid the money to Hitchen through a person named Murphy. Witness ( was cross-examined at considerable length' by defendant, causing gome amusement in court, as the bench remarked that the line of cross-examination taktfn by defendant to prove Hitchen a liar tended to prove that he was a liar himself. Walter Murphy, ranger, Cambridge, knew the parties in this suit. I received some money on behalf of Hitchen. Arnabbldi|asked me if I knew Hitchen's address, as he wanted to pay him some money. After communicating with Hitchen he paid me XI& for hiru on Monday, telling me aLfch§ time that he had received a sumjjibntF By defendant you came to me a month ago. The receipt produced U for the money you paid me, and is in Hitchen's band writing. —The court held that there was no case proved, at the principal bad abWb'inted> two agents, one of whom had collected the money. Judgment for defendant with costs, £1. _ _ _.

ICuhabs v. Kbipwbr. —Claim £6 13s 5d on a promissory note and interest thereon. Mr Dyer for plaintiff. Plaintiff having ptoved the debt, the defendant, who was nob represented by counsel, handed in a written statement, and on being told by the court that it could not be admitted, stated the particulars of a set off amounting to «57 Mte Cd. He acknowledged the claim on the 1 promissory note. On being crossexamined by Mr Dyer defendant admitted certain items*in a supplementary account nut In b.y- plaintiff.— The court advised defenden^to let' judgment go against him in this case, and afterwards submit their aever^l claim* againat each other toarbitration. This being agreed to by both parties judgment was given for the plaintiff with £4 Is coata.

Me«r« A. Buckland and Co.. will sell at Cambridge on Saturday the 14th .nst., produce crttS««N»>«e* &c. &c. ■ On Tuesday the 17th f"t t Jey will sell at Ohaupo 300 head stonj £& &e l*. On Thursday the 19th. they will St?t 'hfe Waltoa yards by instructions from the wKfattSe Cattle Company 300 yearlmg steers ToSSn and heifers also fat and store c*ttle' iad sheep *C ie, Sec advorttsetoeqt.