RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Inangahua Times, Volume XI, Issue 1764, 1 October 1886, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before F. Bii, Esq, K.M.)

Thursday, September 30th, 1886,

Gardner v. Littlb Boatman's Com-

PAN?, WaTKINS, interpleader.

This case was heard at the last sittine of the Court, when judgment was resorved. His Worship ga.ve judtf' ment as follows : —

The questions to be decided in this case are 1 What is thft interest (if any) held by the claimant in the property seized, and who wr9 the judgment given against hy the Resident Magistrate in the case " Gardner v. The Little Boatman's Low Level Tunnel Committee." It is contended on behalf of Mr Warkins that he holds a ce itain interest in the Low Level Ton nel, and the machinery connected therewith, through the assignment to him l.y Mr Clifford of the West Welcome lease, of all his interest in the same, fu the case ahove mentioned the judgment creditor sued the " Little BoaUnan'R Tjow Level Tunnel Committee, P. Brennan S^cn-tary." At the hearing Mr Breunan appeared, ai.d admitted the claim, and it appears the plaintiff in the case elected to accept the judgment ifl that fqrip, "i? , against

11 The Little Boatman's Low Level Tunnel Committee, Patrick Brennan, Secretary." Having done so, he must take the judgment for what it is worth and if it is worth anything it certainly could not be good against any other party than the one on whom the summons was served, namely, Mr Patrick Brennan, Secretary. I think it is clearly proved the claimant in the ease holds a share in the tunnel and machinery, and other parties may have the same, and I consider it would be both unjust and illegal to allow those interest to be sold without the parties having in the first instance an opportunity given them of defending their rights. Considering the nature of the jndgmeiit given, and the wording of the warrant Ido not think it is good as against " The little Boatman's Low Level Tunnel," and the machinery connected therewith, in which the claimant undoubtedly has an interest, and therefore judgment will be for the claimant, with costs, £9 lis. Mr Lyuch for plaintiff, and Mr North for interpleader. Hbslop v. Bennett. This was an information by Mr Heslop, Inspector of Business Licenses for the County, charging defendant with pursuing the business of a haw* ker without being the holder of a license so to do. Defendant did not appear. Mr Lynch, who appeared for plaintiff, btated that a cheque had since been received from defendant for the amount of the license fee, and he would therefore only ask for the infliction of a nominal penalty. Formal evidence was then given showing that defendant was hawking at Boatman's and Black's Point, and was duly cautioned. Fined 5/- and costs and professional fee. ROX BOROUGH AND OTHERS V. M'GAFPIN. Adjourned by consent to the sth November. Inkebman Co. v. Waleb. Claim for £6 7s 6d for calls. Judgment by default for the amount claimed and 18/- costs. Oriental Co. v. Grosr. Claim tor 16/8, beitjg 51st call of 2d per share on 100 shares. In this case Mr North for defendant produced a receipt for the amount of the call sued for. Mr Brennau, the manager, after looking at the document admitted the validity of the re«lipt. Mr North then asked for judgment for defendant with professional costs. Judgment for defendant with costs and profussiona' f«e 21/-. Kum Yen v. Wolf. Claim for £6 10s for goods supplied, I No appearance. Juudgment by default for the amount and costs. I Galina v. Divine. Judgment summons calling upon defendant to show cause why he had failed to satisfy a judgment for £16 for bread and cash lent. ( Mr Lynch appeared for plaintiff. Defendant agreed to pay the amount in instalments of 20/- per month, the ' first payment to be due on Ist November. The Court then adjourned.