Resident Magistrate's Court Dunedin.

Bruce Herald, Volume IX, Issue 806, 26 May 1876, Page 6

Resident Magistrate's Court Dunedin.

The following cases were heard in the Resident Magistrate's Court, Diincdin, on Tuesday, before Mr J. Uathgnfe. UM. : — Kobcrt Smith (Balelutha) v. William Barr ;>nd James Baxter (Trustees in the Estate of Joiui garr).— Claim of £S0 16s, commission on the -sale of' jiifs Milton Hotel and the Crown Hotel, Balduttia. Mr Howorth appeared foi> the plnintiff. Mr Stout, who defended, said t}ie pica was barred by the Statute of Limitations, and pleaded not indebted. Mr Ilownrth contended that the claim was within the &tati}tc, some of the work having beci? done on the -4 til May. IS7O. and the summons issued on the yd M*y t ISIS- Robert Smith gave evidence as to ' transjjcitaij.s between himself and the deceased John ijar.r in i.SGtf and 1870. The deceased Jj»d denied his liability d firing li« lifetime, WWocps said lie never received value for certain rfwge.s .of whisky and brandy in the bm>Us «f tlv famwsr Smith deposed that the p?ainl»ft> <'ajnj{y bad been liberally treated by the late John Hair. His ~\YM'sbiP gave judgment for the plaintiff ; for .Cl 5 ss, and .ejosis. Ann Hughes v. TMiomas Btaftbr.ook> — This was an action to recover £20 dainapjes for wrongful disn.iis;U, Tbe pijjt arose whether the agreements betyyeeu iD&s^ev and servants required stamping under fb<s prcsen|t ia^V Mr Bathgate ii]>pcured for complainant, and Mr Taylor for defendant. — Mr Taylor argued that ih<msk tjiese sgi-cenients uuder Stai^ip

Act, 1866, ■'were exempt, the Act of 1875 having repealed the previous Act, and not re-enacting the exemption, they wore not exempt. This was sustained, and the duty paid. This is important to be-known by those in the habit of engaging servants. In the course of plaintiffs examination, she stated Mr Stanbr.ook had used very abusive language to her. In giving judgment for £8 7s 3d, the amount of wa&es actually earned, the R.M. said he would not allow any damages, and he reguetted Mrs Stanbrook's evidence had not been taken, as the plaintiffs evidence stood at present uncontradicted. Mr Taylor said Mrs Stanbrook had, like other women, an objection to come into Court. He might say that he felt certain, from his instructions, that if Mrs Stanbrook had gone into the box, he would have proved that no such language was uttered, but it was now too lute for her to do so.