RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Press, Volume XII, Issue 1579, 28 November 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHBiSTCnuECH —November 27. [Before 0. C. Bowen, Esq, R.M.]

Raphael v. Osborne —Claim £65, on a bill of exchange.

Plaintiff deposed that defendant had put his name to the bill as an acceptor.

Defendant admitted signing the bill, saying he was asked to do so by a friend.

His Worship said that defendant, as one of the acceptors of the bill, was liable for the amount, and gave judgment for plaintiff.

Mackay v. Mallett—Claim £111 In this case the amount claimed was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court; plaintiff was therefore nonsuited, with leave to bring the case forward again in January, when the new Act comes into force.

Mitchell and Co. v. Paget and Barker— Claim £39 7s lid. Mr Cowlishaw appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Harper for the defendants.

E. Mitchell deposed that he held a sale at Mrs Meddings's of the stock-in-trade, under a bill of sale. The defendants were there bidding. The articles purchased by them were put down to Barker, and charged to him at his request He gave Barker the invoice for the goods Paget bid for several things; they were included in the account.

W. Meddings said he was at the sale ; be saw both defendants bidding. The things were put down to Barker, who took delivery of them, and said Mr Paget would give a cheque for the amoumt. He quite understood they were bidding together.

The defendant Paget said he did not authorize Barker to purchase anything. He purchased some things, requesting they should be put to Barker's accouut. He bad not received an invoice of the goods from Mr Mitchell ; the only one he had seen was that sent to Barker. [Witness here produced a list of the articles he had bought.] He told Weddings that as Barker was going to bring his things for him on the following day he would send a cheque for them. He mentioned to Meddings that his account amounted to £10 or £11.

The defendant Barker said that several tilings in the account produced were bought by him. The first account he received from Mitchell was not correct.

The counsel on both sides having addressed the Court, his Worship said he should give judgment against Barker for full amount and costs, nonsuiting plaintiff with respect to W. Paget. Barker would of course have his remedy against Paget.

Kaiapoi—November 27. IBefore W. B. Pauli, Esq., R.M., and O. Dudley, Esq., J.P.] The case of Nbding v. Monk, for assault, which appeared to have arisen from some disputed agreement, and resulted in little more than angry words, was dismissed.

W. A. Crooke, for having horses at large in the town, was fined 30s. Teoni Pero v. P. Ryan. The plaintiff (a \faori) brought a charge of assault against the defendant (a half-east c), but being of a very trivial nature the Bench dismissed the case.

"Press" v. Lezurd—re-hearing. Plaintiff nonsuited.

Kenrick r Barclay—Claim £25. Judgment I for p'aintiff £18 and costs. W. Waihara (a Maori) v. Hessell—Claim, £2 6s. Judgment for plaintiff Dudley v. Parker—Chim £l 7s, for medical attendance. Judgment by consent. Same v. Elliott—Claim£s7s6d. Adjourned for a wepk. Noding v. Monk—Claim £10. The plaintiff it aDpears had rented a house with fifty acres of freehold land, with stable, stockyard, and outbuildings, for a sum of 10* per week. This the defendant disputed, as he said he only let the house and standing room in the stable for one for that amount. A nonsuit was recorded.

W. Harris v. Copell—Claim £8. Judgment for plaintiff for amount, and costs.