RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Inangahua Times, Volume IX, Issue 1494, 9 January 1885, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

(Before F. Bird, Esq , R.M.) Thursday, January Bth, 1885. Bannockburn Co. v. J. Stewart. No appearance of either party Adjourned until next Court day. Great Eastern Co v. W. Hogg. Claim for £ for calls. No appearance of defendant. Judgment | for the amount and costs. I Dick v. Cliffohd. This was an interpleader case, Mr I P. Twohill claiming aa interest in the grouud seized by the bailiff. Mr Lynch who appeared in support of the interpleader said his client had been a large shareholder in the lease since it was taken up, and he had paid the I ase money. Mr North for plaintiff pointed out that the lease stood in the Court in the name of Charles Clifford, and Clifford was therefore the only owner of the ground whom the Court could regard. There had been no assignment, and consequently the Court could not accept an allegation of ownership by a second person. Mr Lynch concurred so far, but su< -mitred that Clifford held in tru<*t. His client at all events had a good equitable claim. Mr North cited an authority to show that no claim whether legal or equitable could prevail against a registered owner. The Court had no power whatever to go behind tbe evidence of registered ownership. His Worship was inclined to the latter view. Dick might have dealt with Clifford as the undivided owner of the lease, and consequently would have a good equitable as well as legal claim. The only question seemed to be whether Clifford merely held in trust for the Company. h. r North pointed out that even if the lea-se showed that Clifford held on behalf of the West Welcome it would prove nothing, for it was the usual practice for applicants to take out leases in that form, their intention being to subsequently transfer to a company, if formed, but in many cases the companies were r.rver formed. The lease was here produced and showed that Clifford appeared as the sole owner, there being no reference to West Welcome Company. His Worship therefore dismissed the interpleader with costs of Court. Potts v. Molloy. Claim for £2. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for the amount claimed with costs. Imperial Co. v. J. Gray. Claim for £9 7s 6d in respect of two calls of 3d each, on 375 shires, forfeited and offered at auction, but not sold. No appearance of defendant Judgment for the amount claimed and costs. Mr Lynch for plaintiff. Same v. E. C. Strode. Claim for calls on 250 shares which had been forfeited and offered at auction, but were not sold, there being no buyers. The call was 3d per share, £6 2s 6d. There was no o|>pearanee of defendant. Judgment was given for piantiff for the amount claimed and costs. Mr Lynch appeared for plaintiff. John Dice v. William Qirsver Claim for £1 lis 5d for bread. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for the amount claimed and costs. Oriental Co. v. W. Long. This was a claim for *H in respect of call of 3d per sham on 820 shares. Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs. Mr Lynch for piantiff.

Same v. Sarah As* Jones. 1 Claim for £2, being call of 3d per ' share ou 98 shares. Judgment by default for amount and costs. Sams v. Thomas Hunter. Claim for £6 5-, being call of 3d per share on 500 shares. Judgment oy default for amount and costs. Same v W. J Watson jnr. Claim for £1 53 being call of 3d per share on 100 shares. Judgment >>y default for amount claimed and costs. Same » . John Grey. Claim forA'l 5s b~ing rail oi 3 d per share ou 100 snares. Judgment by default for UKamount and costs. Same v. C. Bird. Claim for £15, being call of 31 per share on 1 ,200 shares. Jud.'niHiit by default for amount and ■• .srs. s.in- \. E. Quck. Cl-ii-ii i.. P2 10s. ■ -i..; call ,f :.M per si"*""* •••• .d*-i! ->. * Judgment by del-ialt for SJloU.it and costs. > * Same v. S. Ci lung. Claim for £1 lis 3d, being call of 3d per share on 125 shares. Judgment by default for amount and costs. Same v. Hcnter Bros. Claim for £4 13- 3 d, being call of 3d per share ou 3 3 sha.es. Judgment by default for amount and cost ß. Same v. James Small. Claim for £1 ss, being call of 3d per share at 100 shares. Judgment for amonnt Rooney v. Da VINE. No appearance of either party. ON BILL V.J. COGLAX. ; Claim for £ for work and 1 j labor done, as a blacksmith Mr Lynch appeared for piantiff and Mr North for defendant i Plan tiff *iaid he had lieen asked by I Coglan's hoy to cure a saddle-sore on defendant's horse; was nin- daya curing tbe horse and charged £3 10-.. By Mr North : The sore was the size of a five shilling piece ; I took the hair off the sore and bathed it with liniment and water ; I did not pay anything for the liniment; It might ! not be paid for yet ; Coglan may have j paid for it ; bathed the horse for two hours every day ; the horse was work- ! ing a bit all the time. By Mr Lynch : Coglan never spoke to me about the horse ; it was his I son. j By Mr North : May have received 4/- from Coglan's boy. Patrick Coglan : lam son of the ! defendaut ; never took a horse to O'Neill ; I was washing tbe horse's back at my own place when O'Neill was passing when I asked him to have ; a look at the animal's back ; he did so I and cut away the hair and told me to i get a bottle of Frier's Balsam ; he 1 afterwards came several times snd bathed the horse's back ; never engaged defendant but jnst asked him in a j friendly way. Gave him 4/- for drink. His Worship said the charge for ' curing the horses back was ridiculous there was no proof whatever of the j services and the item of £3 10s won Id be struck off, as also 4/ for cash advanced. Luke O'Neill v. P. Rogers. i This was an actiou to recover £3 10s for work dee. Judgment by consent for amount snd costs. B. Rogers v. Lux* O'Neill. Claim for £5 6s 6d, for cash lent and . balance agreed upon between the parties. Piantiff and his wife gave evidence !as to the claim, and proved he ;>u?i ! charged. ■ Luke O'Neill : Don't recollect any settlement with Rogers in September last ; take my solitary oath they never gave me an account; had the cash charged for. i is Worship said he would strike out the item for drink in the settlement of September, and gave judgment for piantiff for £2 Us 6d and costs. Gallagher Bros. v. A. McLeod. Claim for L for goods supplied. Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. Simb v. R. McLeod. Claim for L for goods supplied. Judgment by default for amount and costs. O'Nieuv. Billet. Claaim for L Mr Lynch for piantiff asked for sn adjournment of the case, his client not being in a fit condition to proceed. Mr North objected to an adjourn ment defendant, had seen brought in from Boatman's at great expense, and was ready to defend tbe action. His Worship said the only condition upon which he could grant an adjournment would be the payment of substantial costs If piantiff thought proper to get drunk il was no reason why defendant should suffer. Adjournment granted upon payment of L 2 to defendant and Ll la costs. The amount to be paid before the case proceed at the next setting. A. M-DowttL v. M-CoHOcms. Judgment summons. No appearance of defendant. Order made for payment of the amount within seven days, iv default one morths imprisonment. A. M'Dowku v. BBSS-*. Claim for L Mr Lynch who appeared for piantiff, pqt in a plea of bankruptcy, and tendeed the order of discharge. Case dismissed. Trustees in Estate of E. Paws A Co. v. Framftow. Claim for L 28s 9d, for goods supplied. Judgment by default for ; mount.

i Smith & BaRKLBY V. C, MfeSStV. Claim for L 22 10s; for goods supplied, In this case defendant had confessed judgment;, and offered to pay tiie amonnt in instalments of L 2 per week. Mr Menteath, who appeared for pi muffs, said his clients declined to accept payment in the manner stated. They claimed an absolute and unconditional judgment. D« fondant was called hat did sot appear. His Worship said in the absence of the d fendaiit, and the refusal of Iho •*. .ii t rF. ti v*c«i>** th? off-r nsede, »■>■»••«• was oo conr-e bit *-■ ■ *nSsr" SEP judgment in th-» ordinary way. Judgmc: t for amount clam ed Ifi.h costs.