MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 11252, 18 April 1902, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Mr R." Beeiham, S.M., presided at the Stipendiary Magistrate's Court yesterday. CIVIL CASES. Judgment for plaintiff -was given in the case of J. Murray vD. Nelson, claim £5 for damages to a trap that had been hired. — J. Orr and Co. (Mr Kussell) sued H. P. Lomax (Mr Western), for £810s, for arrears of instalments and repairs to a bicycle. The defendant -was examined at length, ana it was shown that the bicycle was now in possession of a third party, from whom defendant had borrowed money- o .Jsfi ££ t^e pointed out that the for dealing risk ola jajgSTe as he had done, while it w l% "-belonged to ihe plaintiffs It was decided to adjourn the case to enable the defendant to settle the matter. A PROMISSORY NOTE. Ellen Creswell claimed £15 from H. E. Poardmau on a dishonoured promissory note, and Boardman brought a counter claim against Mrs Creswell for £24. Mr Donnelly appeared for Mrs Creswell, and Mr Byrne for Boardman. It appeared that Mrs Creswell owed one Russell £22, and

Russell arranged with Boardman to seize Mrs Creswell's furniture in satisfaction of the debt. Boardman, according to his own showing ,gave Russell a promissory note for £15, to give, as he said, a "business aspect" to the transaction. Mrs Creswell objected to the seizure of the gpods, and their transfer to Boardman, and Russell then handed her over the promissory note he had received from Boardman. The note, on being presented at the bank, was not honoured on the ground that the signature was unlike Boardman's. Boardman admitted, however, that he had not signed with his usual signature, as it waa not intended that the promissory note should be- used; and he denied that he had purchased the furniture from Russell, but had merely acted in his capacity as bailiff, or agent, in seizing and selling the goods, Russell wasjiot present, and his Worship said he would not decide the ca~e ! without his evidence. An adjournment in the two cases was therefore made till Monday. DEFAULT" CASES. Judgment for plaintiff <.>. by default with costs was given in the following cases: —C. Schmoli v A. C. Johnstone, claim 15s; F. Jti. -Bruges v Thos. McClausiand, claim £20; W. Brioe and Son v.CuJ. H. Fox, claim £6 13s 6d; J. Hoglanil) vA. Jordan, claim £4 18s 6d. FOR DAMAGES. A case occupied the attention of Mr R. Beetham yesterday, in which R. Watson sought to.recosen-rtJSiOO from Robert Falloon and.the inhabitants of the Courtenay Road BoardDistriet; 1 as damages for an accident whioh happened to the plaintiff, whose leg was broken and who was otherwise seriously injured-by a fall of gravel while working fop Failloon. It was alleged that the accident was due to -negligence on the part of R. Falloon in undermining a fcank while carrying out certain works as contractor for the Courtenay Road Board, and that the Board and the contractor were liable under the Act. Messrs Kjppepberger and Cassidy appeared for the plaintiff, j and Mr Harper for the Road Board, and | Mr Ritchie for the defendant FaMoon. Plaintiff gave evidence of the accident, which occurred on November 11th. He bad suffered great pain, and was still lame. He had been unable to work since the accident. The only money he had received i was £7 from the Road Board. The face of the gravel pit in whion the accident occurred was 10 or 12 feet high, with an over- ! hanjr of 18 inches.. A man named Hansen had oeen sent on top of the bank to "strip it," and then the overnaaging portion fell, plaintiff. Dn JFbx and Jno. Walker gave evidence for the plaintiffs. For the defence Mr Harper contended that the igravel fel in. quite by accident, and on its own account, and not through any act on the part of "the defendant Failloon. The Board could not be held liable because Falloon had gone to. another pit 1 for shingle, instead of. the Boards pit. J. Francis, W Road Board, arid: the *»«<**, gave evidence, after which the case was adjourned till Thursday, next.