Alexander M'Minn said he was defen dant, and was away from the Hotel from the lGth December to the 22nd January and was never near it at all—l was engaged for the Herald duringthat time. Mrs A'i'Minn was absent at Turakina for five weeks at her father's—there was no understanding" as to what I was to be charged —in May I was at Kai Iwitor a j whole week—l was away from Wanga nui from August 27th, and was away four months—Mrs M:Minn went to Turakina in October, and was there until I came back—as to the payment in December 1874, I have the butt ot the cheque book and the entry of £10 to J. W.Robinson, when I got the account I told llobinson I had paid him £10—as to the £4 I have paid McQueauy his £2, and claim to have the amount credited to me. The plaintiff said hu would admit the absence as to Mr McMinn, but as to Mrs McMinn he had to keep the room for her and could not make any allowance for her* absence. As to the £4 McMinn had paid McQueauy he would credit him with that amount. Mr Betts said that all that remained now was to decide whether defendant was entitled to a reduction for the absence of Mr McMinn and the payment of the £10. Mr McMinn was away in all for seven weeks. He gave up the absence of Mrs McMinn. The case should never have been brought into court, but should have been sefct'ed by arbitration, and they had repeatedly tried to have it settled. Mr Robinson said that he never received the £10 stated to have been paid to him on the butt of the cheque. The Bench gave judgement for £3 12s Gd, the balance, minus the setoff.besides the sum paid into Court. Hells v. McDonald.—An action for £40 for goods sold and and money lent. No appearance of defendant, and judg ment was given for the amount. This was the last case, and the Court adjourned.
