R.M. COURT, TEAWAMUTU.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 3136, 20 August 1892, Page 2

R.M. COURT, TEAWAMUTU.

Wb£>N«BDAT.—(BefornCapt. Jackson,R.M ) Tannkb v; Hotu.—Judgment for unman!) claimed, £2 17s lid, and costs, £1 2s Ud.' Tannbk v. Ikanoa.— Judgment for amount claimed, £2 li*, and costs, 16s 6s. Tanner: v , Hapimana.— Judgment for amount claimed, £2 ; and costs, £2 4s (id. Mr Gresham appeared for the plaintiff in each of these c;nes. Cobbot v. Edwards.— Claim, £38 16s, amount of dishonoured promissory note and interest. Mr Cruickshank for .plaintiff.— Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, and costs, £i 13s. , Gbakam v. Alum.—Mr Cruiekshank for plaintiff unci defendant opposed the claim in person. , Plaintiff claimed £20. being three weeks' hire'of a bullosk team at £5 a week and £5 for loat bullocks. The evidence of plaintiff and defendant was takeu after which the Court gave judgment for £15, for the hire and disallowed the amount claimed for flosses. Costs, £2 19s, were allowed to plaintiff. CoBBOY v. £2 17a 4d, foe goode sold and delivered. Mr Cruickshank for plaintiff and MrGre«hatn for defendant. The defence was that the claim had been satisfied, and the defendant produced a re- ■ ceipt purporting to be for the amount due on a promissory note but which was, he contended, also a receipt for the amourifc of the store account as well.—The plaintiff in her evidence stoutly denied that this receipt was ever intended to be for anything but what was thorein expressed that is for »he promissory note alone.—Mr Sibley,«*Und for the defence, deposed to paying the plaintiff. £3 which was to be in full satisfaction of all her claims against defendant; —The Magistrate said the balance of testimoney was in favour of the plaintiff, and gave judgment for £2 17s 4d, and coati, 19a 6d. '