■lenuoneu oy r.ir, i^arne iu » is repuri.Brocoli Plant.—W. Ii. Trahairt?. H. Osborne, market-gudener, Mouaehola,—Tins e t*o w*§ adjourned from thelast Court for the evidence ot Mr. Cbir^wia a» to the value of som^ broeoli plant.—Mr. IL-nry Osborne said that, in pi)in;r Air. Trahair's fields, he saw tauiplaiuant’i twj sons cieuriM* the broeoli plant, which were long aud not very fine.I Ilis n took about 1000 to 180G, which were pi kitted to;: ther in a r fleM iu which there were t ) other sorts of bfocoli plant and turnips, lie ( defendant) offered plaintiff *2t)s. rattier than go fo I Court, but he wanted £*2.—'Thomas Trihair, son of the p;aintiff,! said his f .ther’s field had 3J b*ds of plant, aud h* cleared out ail j huk a few mii *11 ones from t«i ef the bed! Mr. Osborne nw them about it, aud said, “ Hoiloa, dkapi, you have a fine lot of broeoli here; can I hive some?” and he was told to go to witness's father and ask hiai about it. Afterwards Mr. Osborne took away some of the pl*nt, leaving about 200 behind.— William Tonkin, market-gardener, said that, in July of last year, late broeoli plant might be worth ahou: 7s. per 1000. He hai iiol aold any himself last year.— Henry Lawrence, market-gard^ner, made aftout 12a. p^r loOO in July last ; Luke Rowe bought some J late broeoli plant in the early part of July, at 8s. per 1000 ; John CHirgwin did not buy auy plant of Mr. Tranair.—Judgment given j for 10s., the amouut paid intj Court oy defendants.Claim for Professional Work. — Borlase, Milton, and j Bortae v. Fwrdmand Scorza.—This was a claim for 13s. 4i. for professional work, of wnich defendant hud paid 5s. into Court. —Defendant produced some accounts, off which certain heavy allowances had been made, and appeared to have some j id^a that this should be the practice wild all accounts.—JuJ^tneuc given for the full amount.