RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.
ASHBU ETON. —To-Day. (Before J. N. Wood, Esq., R. M.) Drunk and Disorderly.—A first offender was fined 5s on a charge of being drunk and disorderly.
Breach or Bridge Regulations.— Henry Moffatt was charged with having driven a traction engine over the Ashburton bridge in the day time, and after hearing the evidence, which was of a conclusive character, his Worship fined the defendant LlO and costs. CIVIL CASES. Ivess v. Chattaway—Claim, L 6 4s 6d. Judgment by default for amount and costs.
Same v. Battlin—Claim, L2 ss. Similar judgment. Stevens v. Norrish—Claim, L 4 17s. Mr O’Reilly for the plaintiff, Mr Branson for defendant.—A verdict was given for plaintiff for 2s Cd.—Mr O’Reilly applied for costs.—His Worship remarked that there were railage fees to the extent of 12s. Mr O’Reilly could not expect professional service fee on half-a-crown.—Mr O’Reilly replied that he merely asked for Court fees. His Worship thought the summons ought to have been served by the plaintiff.—Mr Branson requested that only the cost of the summons should be allowed.—Mr O’Reilly asserted that his Worship had given judgment.—His Worship denied Mr. O’Reilly’s statement. He should only give judgment for cost of summons.—Mr O’Reilly said his Worship was reversing his decision. He had given judgment for the cost of summons and mileage, and on his (Mr O’Reilly’s) requesting particulars had altered his decision. —His Worship : Very well then, I’ve reversed it.—Mr. O’Reilly: What is the amount now your Worship ? His Worship : Two and sixpence, and costs 7s. The plaintiff should have served it himself. The case is a most trumpery one. —The plaintiff submitted that he had offered to serve the summons, but the Clerk told him it must be served by the bailiff.—The Clerk of the Court, in reply to his Worship, said he might have told plaintiff it was customary for the bailiff to serve the summons. He had not, however, declined to permit plaintiff to serve the plaint himself.— His Worship declined to allow mileage fee.
Stephens v. Ward —Claim, L 8 ss, —Mr O’Reilly for the plaintiff, and Mr Crisp for the defence. —The claim was for rent, the defence being that the rental at which the premises had been leased was only half the amount of that claimed.—His Worship considered the defence offered was a good one, and gave judgment for the amount of LG 5s and costa.
Stuart v. Morley—Claim, L 9 7s 6d.— Mr Branson for plaintiff— Judgment by default.
Dudson v. Harrison—Claim, L2 14s.— Mr O’Reilly for the plaintiff, and Mr Branson for the defence. —The claim was for value of produce which had been placed in the hands of defendant for disposal by auction, a reserve being put thereon by plaintiff, and such goods being sold at a price below the reserve.— The defence proved that Mr Harrison’s clerk pointed out to plaintiff's representative that the rule was that no reserve would bo taken on produce, but'that if the price reached did not meet plaintiff’s approval, he could be in attendance at the sale and buy in. Plain tiff’s representative ageed to this, and was present at the sale, but made no effort to prevent the disposal of the goods, although they did not realise the amount he had previously specified.—His Worship gave judgment for LI 17s, which amount had been paid into Court, disallowing an application for costs.
Fox v. Clarke —Claim, LlB 10a 7d. — Mr O’Reilly for the plaintiff—A set-off of LI 2s was admitted, and judgment given for L 9 6s 7d.
Permanent link to this item
Ashburton Guardian, Ashburton Guardian, Volume 2, Issue 325, 22 April 1881
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume 2, Issue 325, 22 April 1881
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.