From Western Post & Mudgee Newspaper Saturday, 19 October 1861. DUBBO From a Correspondent The District Court was held at the Court House on Thursday, the 10th October, before Henry CARY, Esq., who was presented with a list of twelve cases, none of which were to be tried by jury. SERISIER v. McGUINIS - Plaintiff claimed £13 18s. 6d. - balance due on defendant's dishonoured cheque. Undefended. Verdict accordingly. SERISIER v. ROBERTSON - Claimed £20 1s 6d for goods sold. Undefended. Verdict for that amount. SLATTERY v. BROCKLEHURST - The plaintiff claimed wages as storekeeper at £60 per annum for two years and one month, on the station known as "Weemobong", the property of the defendant jointly with his brother and Mr. CORNISH. Mr JAMES appeared for the plaintiff. James SLATTERY stated that he had agreed with Mr. Walter BROCKLEHURST to take charge of the stores at Weemobong, and to receive the same rate of wages as he had previously had for like services at another station of these gentlemen (£60 per annum). Mr. Walter BROCKLEHURST was obliged, by ill health, to leave the colony some time last year, and then told the plaintiff he left him to the care of his brother, the defendant. He admitted having had some cash and stores, stating the amount. The defendant admitted his joint interest in the station and all that concerned it, with his brother Walter and Mr. CORNISH, and did not dispute the time of service or the rate; but had resisted the claim, understanding that Mr. MULLER (a sort of superintendent) would se(ttle?) Verdict for plaintiff, £79 2s 5d. DEAN v. IRVINE - Claimed £8, for balance of plastering work, and 15s for cartage done by plaintiff for defendant, who is chief constable of Dubbo. Mr. JAMES appeared for the plaintiff. The evidence of the plaintiff showed there was a written contract to perform the work for £34; that it was done, and so far approved of by defendant that he paid £10, and named a time for payment of balance; subsequently £16 was paid without complaint, but months afterwards, when applied to for the balance, defendant said, "I don't intend to pay you any more". The defendant, on being called, said, "I don't appear, your Honor". The Judge replied, "Well, I don't wish to see you" and immediately asked the bailiff of the Court whether the defendant was present. Mr IRVINE then sprung on his feet, and took a technical objection to the summons; this being disposed of, a defence was set up that the work was not according to contract. His Honor adjourned the case to admit evidence of witnesses; when produced, however, it utterly failed, and a verdict went for the plaintiff for £8 15s. ***END*** N.B. All care has been taken to transcribe the above accurately, however errors may have been inadvertently made. Spelling of names/places should be as appears in original. Transcribed from microfilm available from the State Library. Annette Piper Coolah NSW