RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume I, Issue 83, 14 April 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THURSDAY, APRIL 14 (Before T. Beckham, Esq., R.M.) The usual weekly meeting for the recovery of small debts was held yesterday. JUDGMENT 1?OK PLAINTIFFS. Judgment was given for plaintiffs %i .the following cases :—Rogers and Son v. Miles, £4 ss. (goods sold and delivered) ; Douglas V. P. S. Mackenzie, £2 ss. (dishonored cheque). NO APPEARANCE. . ", ' Dornwell v. Rattray j Eyfe v. Moantii : ElUs v.^Mitchell. •*-\ ... LEE T. DOTF*. ' ClaM £&.=.. ,-, " . /Mr. Brookfield appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Hesketh.for defendant. This was an action to recover the above sum, for medical attendance. It appeared from the evidence that the defendant's wife was bitten by a dog belonging to Mr. Macready. Dr. Lee was called in to attend, he could'not say by whom, but he continued his services. The defendant several times came to his surgery for lotion, &c. His Worship could not see how the detendant could evade judgment after the evidence given; < t ! ■ <' ; . , . , ' Mr. Heskcth said the defence was that Duffy did.not employ the medical gentleman. The fact was that the defendant's wife having been bitten by Macready's dog, Mrs. Macready employed the medical man. The defendant ' wished to be secure in his position to obtain his remedy. The defendant could not deny that his wife had the full benefit of Dr. Lee's services. If the defendant was to be held bound to pay these expenses he must have his remedy against the owner of the dog. His Worship said that judgment must be for the plaintiff. '■ At the same time he hoped that, under the circumstances, no action would be taken until the defendant has his remedy. - HAYNES V. GEEEN. Mr. Rees appeared for. the plaintiff; Mr. Joy for the defendant. i This was a double action by the plaintifffirst to recover £10 for assault and battery; and, second, to recover £10 17s, money due. Both the plaintiff and defendant arc men of color. The progress of the case greatly changed the complexion of the case as put by the plaintiff. Indeed, his statements from from the beginning were very highly coloured. Joseph Hayes said that himself and the defendant hawked goods about the country; They were in partnership in this enterprising ' business. On the 7th of this month went to ■defendant's house to. get some money due-to him, Defendant was under the verandah at the time. He went into his house and brought some money out in his hand—a pound-note and some silver. Defendant said, " Take this and I'wilLgive you the rest in the morning." Witness said he wanted the money at once, as he believed the defendant wanted to swindle him. Defendant said* "If you call me a thief I will knock you down." Witness said, " You are," and defendant knocked him down.

By Mr. Joy : Could not say whether the money in defendant's hand amounted to £9 10s. Followed defendant down the street; Called him a thief. Witness did not bleed his skin; his skin was not blackened; ate his meals as usual ever since, and .wished the Court to giro him £10 for the damage done him. I i -"i !

The defendant put a very different complexion upon the caiisus belli. , He said he was in' his di'essingrobm when the colored gentleman arrived under his verandah. The plaintiff: said he wanted the money. Witness offered him a cheque for the amount. Plaintiff said he would have the money all at once. Witiiess turned to the lady and. asked her what money she had in the house. The lady replied that-she had £9. Witness took the money and counted it into plaintiff's hand. Plaintiff is of a very sanguine temperament, and said if the witness did not pay him the whole amount lie would by well show him up. He then wanted a " teetotbm", which is a thing that spins round. He wanted to have his " pick", but witness thought he had right to a " pick" as well. The plaintiff then called the defendant a sanguinary thief, and the defendant gave to the plaintiff muscular demonstration that the adjective should be separated from the nown, and pushed him away. The amount due to the plaintiff was £10 7s. The money had been paid.

His Worship said-there was plainly perjury on one side or the other. The plaintiff swore that he never entered the defendant's house. The defendant swore he paid the plaintiff in his room. The plaintiff swore he wa9 not paid the money.

Mrs. Larnbour.ne, the, lady who keeps the house in which the defendant was staying, deposed that when plaintiff came to the house defendant was in his bed-room. The plaintiff entered the defendant's bed-room. Witness got £9 at the request of defendant, and gave it to him. Witness brought it to defendant. There were eight sovereigns and one note. Saw the defendant pay the money to the the plaintiff. He counted the eight sovereigns and the note into defendant's hand. The defendant used language that was not nice. ; Mr. Joy said he would not offer a word to the Court for the defence. The Court would see that there was gross false swearing ou one side, and could judge on which side it was. The very respectable lady who had been examined described the whole of the transaction with the greatest minuteness.

His Worship said the question was assault or no assault. When a man calls another a thief he must not be surprised if he caused soDie excitement, resulting in damage to himself. But, in this case, the Court must think, to say the least, that the plaintiff was not the witness of truth, and judgment must be given for the defendant. COHEN V. SOLOMON. Mr. Hesketh for plaintiff. The plaintiff is auctioneer carrying on buisiness in Queen-street. The defendant purchased at plaintiff's sale room (by auction) goods to the amount of £99 17s. sd, The conditions of 3ale set out the time within which goods should be cleared. The goods were not cleared in the ordinary way, and the defendant was reminded verbally and by letter of the fact. Defendant then said that he purchased for Bruce Brothers, and as sbon as lie got the money he would pay for tho goods. Witness was in a position to deliver (he goods. The goods were resold, and tho present claim was for the amount of the difference betweeu the amount bid by the defendant and that obtained at the resale.

The defendant said that he was an undischarged bankrupt; that ho received no notice or demand before tho issue of th# summons ;

that he purchased for M/essrs B^T Brothers; that he could liot annoim, the fact to the auctioneer a t J* sale, but did so immediately afterward? Bruce Brothers is a firm at Dunedin. W" ness never bought the goods for hhaM Told Mr. Cohen immediately after he left w box. His Worship thought the defendant hadnoi disclosed his principal at the sale, and %»s therefore liable. Judgment for the plaintiff. The defence set up was a frivolous one. Left sitting.