BESIDE NT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Inangahua Times, Volume II, Issue II, 23 April 1880, Page 2

BESIDE NT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

» ■ ■■ Thubsday, Apbil 22, 1880. (Before W. H. Revell Esq., R.M.) OVEBBND V. LTNCH. This was an information charging defendant with illegally interfering with a fence. Mr Lynch for defendant, applied for an adjournment of the case, owing to the short service of summons. Mr Cowan opposed the adjournment, but bis Worship said as the case was of some importance it was advisable that it should Be Tally investigated, for which purpose he would adjourn it till next Court day. Smith and Babkley v. Jone§. Claim for £3 2s 6d for goods supplied. No appearance of defendant. Plaintiff stated that since the s/rvioe of the summons defendant had remitted the sum of £2 by post. Judgment for £1 2s 6d, and costs. TiqroßY Company v, JBeikby. Claim for £10 for calls, , No appearance of defendant. * Judgment for tjie amount wkb^pitg... i " ' ' Samb y.-HoßNicra. Claim for"£SO 16s 8d for calls,' No appearance of defendant. Judgment for tbe amount claimed with costs, Gbibvbs and Gqthabd t. Smilb. Claim for £1 3s lid for meat supplied. No.appearance of defendant. Judgment for the amount claimed, with costs. Williams v. Mkkbll. Claim for £ for board, lodging, and cash lent. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for the amount claimed, with costs. New Independent Company v. Lock* INCHON. Claim for £1 2s 7d for calls. Defendant denied the liability, alleging that he transferred his shares. Mr Brennan stated that the defendant did apply to transfer his shares to the company, but the directors having pre viously passed a resolution prohibiting the transfer of any shares, the transfer was not effected, and defendant's name, therefore, still remained upon tbe register of the company* Tbe Magistrate ruled that the defendant having tendered notice of bis intention to transfer, aal paid all demands upon his shares up to that time, could not now be sued for calls sibsequently made. He was still responsible for his proportion of the debts of the company up to tbe time of but would have to be proceeded against in another manner. • The case dismissed., Sam% v« Lynch. Claim for £ * for calls. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for the amount claimed, with costs. Same v. Anderson. Claim for £1 lls lid for calls. No appearance of defendant. Judgment by default for tbe amount claimed, with costs. This wan tbe whole of the business, and tht Court then adjourned.