RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.—This Day.

Auckland Star, Volume XIII, Issue 3559, 5 January 1882, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.—This Day.

(Before J. E. Macdonald, Esq., R.M.)

Judgments for Plaintiffs.- Cochrane and Son v. Patrick Quinn.claim £1 12* 6d. Mr Dacre stated that the claim w.as for advrrtising at request of defendant; costs, £%m3s 6d (Mr James Russell for plaintiffs) ; S. U. Brown v.. D. Flanaghan, £3 13a 9d, groceries; costs, £1 13s Cd (Mr a E. Cooper for plaintiffs) ; Brown Barrett and Co. v. Waldren, £5 123 3d, goods,costs,£l 18s (Mr Thorac for plaintiff); Young Warren v. Frank Schultz (Napier), 13s 10d, coats,l3a ; M. Levy and Co. v. M. Mawer, £C 5s 3d, goods, cost?, £1 18s (Mr T. Cooper for plaintiffs); Thomas Steadman v. James If. Kowe, £18 7s 7d, promissory note, cost*, £3 9a (Mr Thome for plaintiff); Thomas Fauldcr v. John Kerr, £4 Is, wo.k, costs, £1 3s Gd (Mr George for plaintiff); Th°mas Steadinau v. Donald Taylor, £3 14s Id, goods, costs, £1 2a 6d (Mr W. Thome for '"'adjourned CASES.-Ma 9 eGcld v. Graham, claim, £50; Oppcnheim v. Havener, £29 4s 3d; Faulder v McDonald £22; Somerfield and Leek v. Brown, £7 19a Id; KusscU v. Scott, £9 17s Cd ; Hancock and So v Ildridfie, £G 18a fid; Brown v. Orcenleaf, £7 ss; Buckland v. Boon, £16 0a 6d, DEFENDED CASES, P. Harges v. F. Richardson, claim £5 3s Cd.eash lent.—Mr Georgo for plaintiff. -Mr Tyler fordefendant.-Simon Peter Ilarges, purchaser of the book debts in the estate of Kummer and Co. deposed that the claim was for money advanced to defendant while on his wedding tour, and cost o£ sending the money, He produced a certified copy of the deed of assigume»t under the seaiof the Court.-Mr Tyler objected to this document being put in evidence; toe original must bo produced,—Hiß Worship thought it might be taken as prima facie evidence, but, without authorities, he would not be positive. -Some argument followed, when Mr George said he would not waste tho time of the Court on an uncertainty, but would ask for an adjournment. Mr Tyler offered no objection, and the case was adjourned until the 12th inSt<Oxlcy v. Bradley.-Claim, £12 2s 6d, danwgcs.-Mr T. Cooper for plaintiffs, and Mr Tyler for defendant.—ln this act the plaintiffs, Messrs J. & D. Oxley, claimed for damage on breach of contract. Defendant was engaged as captain of the Fleetwing in July last, at a salary of £11 per month. Mr Uoopcr explained the caso, but in consequence of a few errors, his Worship thought it best to allow Mr Oxlcy to tell his own story. —John William Oxley deposed that Captaiu Bradley was engaged, under agreement, to serve as master of the Fleetwing. The a"reement wan made by Captain Bradley, with J. and D. Oxley. Others had nothing to do with the engagement. J. and D. Oxley were the principal?, and alone responsible. To Mr Tyler: The captain waa employed by the owners.—To Mr Cooper: Captain Bradley waa commander of the vessel before it came into thoir hands. There was then another part-owner of the ship.—To His Worship : He and his brother were the actirc partners on the 4th and sth of October. He advanced cash, £1 2a 6d, to Captain Bradley out of the firm's money ; thathai not b»en repaid.—To Mr Tyler: This money was lent, and not given on account of wages. Paid the captain the balanco of the wages without taking into account the £1 2s 6d.~ James Bradley gave evidence; he received the 22a Gd on account of wages ; he would swear that the amount was deducted from his wages.—To Mr Tyler : About £7 was due to him at the time; Daniel Oxley &avc him the 2s Gd for fare to Onehunga; and the £1 he received ot the last witness; took a cheque for £5 17s or thereabouts.—To His Worship : Had no statement of accounts between him and the firm.—This was the case.— His Worship, in looking over the evidence, said he had not the materials to enable him to do justice between the parties; it was a ques-t-on of loan or no loan; it was difficult to come to a satisfactory conclusion in the matter.—Nonsuited, with costs,£l 6*. Hitchcns v. Kleiber, claim £8, cash lent. —Mr George for plaintiff.—Mr Tyler was engaged for defendant, but withdrew in the absence of defendant.—Mr Hitchens deposed that the claim was for money lent, which defendant admitted. - Judgment for plaintiff, costs £1 17s. Webb v. Payne.—Claim, £9 Is 6d.—Mr Edward Cooper for plaintiff; Mr Alexander for defendant.—Mr Cooper explained ;tho claim, which waa interest on payments on a pianoforte, and called evidence.—Samuel Henry Webb, pianoforte importer, sold a piano, in the year 1879, to Mr Payne, on the deferred-payment system, at 10 per cent, interest ou the balance ; £5 was paid down; the value of the instrument was £55 15s.—To His Worship : His usual custom was to charge 10 per cent, on the whole a'flount until the was settled; Mr Payne agreed to hi 3 torms, and to payiDg in £5 monthly instalments.— To Mr Cooper : The net amount, £55 15?, had been piid.—His Worship considered that Mr Webb was not entitled to continued interest on money which had been paid.—r Mr Cooper, however, contended that some consideration should be made for the risk. —Mr Payne faid the agreement was for pounds and not guineas; he was willing to pay what was just; but the understanding was certainly for £55.-Mr Cooper was prepared to admit this.—Mr Webb contended that his claim wa3 warranted by his system of doing business. —Mr Alexander said Mr Webb would fiud a difficulty in getting the interest.— George W. Payne was then swoin, and deposed that the amount agreed upon between him and Mr "Webb was £55. Ho was positive it was not guineas, or he should have paid for it in £5 5a instalments. He never heard of guineas until ho had paid £55. Two charges for tuning was an error, "as Mr Webb only tuned it once.— His Worship thought it was tight that a piano should be delivered in order and properly tuned.—Finally judgment was given for £3 11s 8d ; costs, £1 193.

This was all the business*.