RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Press, Volume XIII, Issue 1730, 24 September 1868, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.

I Tuesday, September 22. [Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.] cm_. Esdmaker v. Buckley—Claim for balance of ?sg™. Ths plaintiff stated that he had engaged to rai at 6a a day and found. He had been eßploje_ seventeen weeks and one day. Defendant said £1 per week was the sum 6p&d upon. _ |tying judgment, his Worship said that is all cases where oath was against oath, he gmjudgment for the average wages of the prises. Judgment for defendant. Judgment for full amount and costs was ptaia the following:—C. W. Duckworth v ißeeehey, 487 9 6d; G. H. Sharpe t Victor Essb, £_ 6s lid j John Gilmour v C. Rey- -!_, £& ss-j Ward : and Reeves vR. Waltsa, i 5 4s 8d; Same v R.Reeves and Co, l§t,lki W.fl.Mein w John O'Malley, £1 §1-10.} Thomas Clarkson v David Butler,

CHRISTCHURCH—September 23.

y [Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.] I' 4 -BTOKEHK-SS. 5| Job Blakely was charged with drunken_ad disorderly conduct. |f -Appeared from the evidence of the approT?te__g constable that about four o'clock on 7g' i__y afternoon the prisoner was drunk and 6 great disturbance in Ward's brewery. violent, and assistance had to be in order to get him to the station. m Hu Worship said as this was the ninth time Sb defendant had been brought up on a drunkenness and disorderly conduct, ■ •?-tnsrasd him to prison for a month. '_-: TO-TAMPED BALANCE. { ■ Ss"- Knight, butcher, of Caledonian

guilty to an information laid by of Weights and Measures, - 2S|ing him with being in possesion of an spring balance ; but excused him- -? v**jing that he was temporarily using J bahacs while another was being re- ! ,$* Court inflicted a fine of 20s, and ordered .■*»-_ nee to be forfeited. i v crvn.. fairer and Mann v. Jameson. —This was ' 11 * 0 WCOTer for a huUock sold to es: &at and expenses incurred in driving **ame. for defendant r J& defence set up was that, owing to the -~fa being m a wild state, delivery could I jS* kearing the evidence, his Worship ISr til€re was nofc sufficient proof to l animal was in the condition de--1 $ba at delivery ad actually been JC?' wold not, however, allow the iS.* «irivitig. Judgment for plaintiffs f jT?t»- W,Ioo8----fCf OD «% v. J. Heron-Claim of £1810s « i *karitiff waa nonsuited.

v.W, Styche.—ln this action, the j, gof which had been adjourned, plain* to recover £87 3s 4d, the two I " em * w bich were inW Nscoant of the purchase-money 0f land and a building, at £1 a eennjoDthßinteresfc on ,he agreed 1 fen ™? Midland and house, £307 14s lOd. a PP«are<i for the plaintiff, and 4 defendant. - &* ° a being examined, stated that is $sti* J? defendant, who was in his £*fi»lT-ii Sme » m aero of laild for £110 » t ssd _»* a faouße D p° n Jt » the wliole to be I lnstalni ent3 of £1 a week. A I -^atfTi 611 * 'a 8 sent to plaintiff from Mr g; ffi lfr| ce ».which he approved of, but did |- •«• engrossed deed. The and cost £197 4s lOd. Dell Pie(i ** *>r sixteen months. The I }$w *■ boots crediting defendant with I 0 ? acc °unt of the land and house, I 8 handwriting. I was m naming ac«

tiklA ni c ? tnem whe n these amounts were \ smalls g defendanfc owed him one or two I dP!- D ,l * m _* ~ Tile ac « i ount produced was renin »Jf defendant by Mr Aikman, who was ■&T esss employ. ""•ewp to Mr Dun.-an. S c nart?e s w\ d l af t ° f an a g™<-ent berw,,n j of by both*. 6 Baid had been appw"* l tha^attvfrJ B"*'8"*' °- n hein * examined, said there w„_ **? th ° »«»«-«* was made. SdnlSfr-ff -T* aCCOunt between himself to thell^5 eilSting ' a ? d the made not on We f e °, n t the general account » a » d not on account of the land and house. He andtW d a,rß .fty*<»«> the agreement. '_Ti?e_ ?n f h6 WOUld d <>«o, B but had Dlaintii\ S fil U3 .P romi3e - I* because Jr_nJf) f B * ot B , lgned tha a that Tclunt denteredth ° BUmS t0 the general Mr Cottrell submitted that the existence of a contract although but a parole one, had been 6 , 5 f% the caße waa taten out of the ft, Ij * - Fraud " b * il haTiQ g been Proved tnat defendant was put in possession of the property and had made payments on account of the contract. Mr Joynt submitted that one clause of the agreement was a distinct stipulation, without qualification, that if at any time weekly paymen to fell eight weeks in arrears, the agreement should become void, and the property be forfeit to plaintiff; and, therefore, that this was the only remedy open to the plaintiff if defendant neglected to keep up the payments. His Worship was of opinion that such a covenant must be construed to mean void by election of tho vendor, on the general principle of Jaw that a person could not benefit by his own wrong doing. Mr Joyce also contended that the case was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, as the whole amount of the contract would be £331, and it was not competent for the plaintiff to sue for portions of the account. The contract also came within the Statute of Frauds, since no money had been paid by defendant to a specific account for the property. Bare possession was not sufficient to take it out of the statute. His Worship was of a contrary opinion to Mr Joynt on both points, and gave judgment for the plaintiff for £98 10s 2d. W. Styche v. J. Bailey—Action to recover £18 Bs, as four weeks salary as clerk, two weeks being in lieu of notice. This case and the last were heard in conjunction. Defendant put in a set-off of £11 6s lOd, and the Court nonsuited the plaintiff. Lyttelton—September 22. [Before Win. Donald, Esq., R.M.] Collier v. Bretts—Claim £2 Is 6d. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, with 12s costs; Baker v. Hart—This was a claim for rent of a house which defendant had taken, but had not occupied. Defendant said the hoase was totally unfit for habitation. His Worship gave judgment for the amount claimed, £7 10s and £1 43 costs. McClatchie v. Robson—'Adjourned for a week. Hill v. Bretts—£2 13s 6d. Judgment for £2 5s 6d and 12s costs. Wednesday, September 23. [Before W. Donald, Esq., R.M.] John Brown was fined 10s, or in default forty-eight hours' imprisonment, for being drunk and disorderly in a licensed house. Kaiapoi—September 22. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.] I. Francis was fined 10s on two informations with being the owner of a horse found at large. A. Mason v Marshall—ln this case defendant had assaulted the p'aintiff, and was bound over in his own surety of £50 to keep peace for six months. W. A. Benn, under the Weights and Measures Act, was fined £1. C. Sims was also fined £1 for a like offence—both on the information of the Inspector. *__.oraas v Simpson —Claim £4 6s. Judgment for plaintiff. Sims v Jannaway—£ls lis. Adjourned. Day vG. Lock—Claim £51656 d. Judgment for plaintiff. Smith v Delamain—Claim £4 14s. Judgment for defendant. Newnham v Garrett —Claim £2 5s 10d. Judgment for plaintiff.