Monday, May 6. (Before Mr E. H. Carew, R.M.) • JJl agl?ei?t' ™3 given for thß Plaintiffs, with costs in the following undefended cases :-Kew Zealand Hardware Company v. W. Sutherland, claim £20 7s 2d, for goods supplied ; same v. G. Perry, claim £25 2a for goods supplied- Equitable Insurance Com pany v. George A. Levin, claim £3 17s 7d, for calls due on shares; same y.t). O'Donoghue, claim £7 Us lid, for calls due on shares. aStV\?-S^ on-~CMm £33s' for board and lodging.— Mr Wilkinson, who appeared for the defendant, stated that his clieat admitted tlio debt Judgment was given for the plaintiff accordingly. Otago Harbour Board v. Keith Hamsay.-lVthia previously-heard case the claim was amended to £h Is by agreement of the parties to the suit, and his Worship gave judgment as follows:-" This claim is tev? d"nthrec grounds. First, that the bye-liw is invalid, because the resolution of the Harbour Board purports that the board make and pass bye-laws in pursuanoe of powers vested in the board by ' The Har ta authoiTh' "XT" .the rate "in ex=ess of what authorised by that act, and would be good only h£ Im ™£ aS°*arb°°rßoard Further Empower^ ing Act 1882/ which permits of a larger rate. It seems to me unnecessary that the resolution should state under what statute the board were proceeding nn?nffßnS^ emer^ elnfi sur Plus»ge, I think it can not affect the validity of the bye-law. The procedure a the same, and I think it sufficient that the board had the power to make the bye-law and exercised that power. The second objection is that bye-law *3d js unreasonable, if the interpretation plaintiff ffrnnmJ Tf f, "f COrreOt> rDd theref°re bad on that §«?»<?' f thilt^ vere s °. I don't think it could help v ™ m S case-because if it is invalid the full rate ( W* °n a>l goods imported. 