RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, HAMILTON.

Waikato Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 2387, 27 October 1887, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, HAMILTON.

Wednesday, —(Before Mr If. W. Norther 11ft, R, M.) CIVIL CASKS. Thekk were several judgment; summons and other debt cases disposed of. Hay v. Vincent.— Amount £IG Os (id, balance of contract due to A. McLeod, which had been assigned by him to plaintiff. Mr O’Neill appeared for defendant. McLeod was examined by Mr Hay, and cross-examined by Mr O'Neill as to whether there was any absolute assignment to Mr Hay, or should the money be paid to him or not.—Mr Hay was sworn and gave evidence as to the transactions between himself and McLeod and Vincent. He said notice had been given to thn defendant of the assignment.—Mr O’Neill objected to this evidence, and argued with the Bench on that point. He protested that Mr Hay had not given the defendant legal notice to produce the written notice alluded to as required by the Act. —The Bench refused .to concede the point to Mr O’Neill, saying that if judgment went against his client, he could appeal to the Supreme Court. —Mr O’Neill replied that Vincent was already a ruined man, and that he had been treated unfairly. Mr O’Neill then threw up his case and left the court. —Mr Hay continued his evidence.—The defendant, in reply to the Court, stated he had two witnesses in court to give evidence of inferior workmanship of plaintiff, but as his lawyer had abandoned him, he was unable to go on with his case. The case was ultimately adjourned.