Resident Magistrate's Court.

Clutha Leader, Volume II, Issue 55, 29 July 1875, Page 5

Resident Magistrate's Court.

Balclutha, Wednesday, 28 th July. (Before J. P. Maitland, Esq., R.M.) OTAGO AND SOUTHLAND INVESTMENT COMPANY V. RATTRAY. Mr D RHd for plaintiff. * Clam, L 54 3s 6d. Judgment was given for amount claimed, and L 2 6j costs. SMITH V. RATiRAY. Claim for L2l ss. . Mr D. Reid appeared for plaintiff. Judgment given for amount claimed, and Ll 18s costs. MANNING V. KNOX. Claim of 1u.6 for medical attendance. Mr Taylor appeared for plaiutiff, Mr Reid for defendant. Defendant paid Ll 19* and costs into ' Court, and put in set off for a portion, the balance disputed. Mr Taylor objected.' to the set off owing to his client, not being served with a copy, i Mr Reid then withdrew the set oif, also the amount paid into Court, and pleaded indebted to the amount of Ll2 12s, balance disputed. Dr Manning was examined at length as . to bis attendance. The set off was handed ; to him, which he said he would most gladly 1 honor, but there were items contained in it for accommodation during the time he was attending defendant, and which be should decline to pay. John Knox, the defendant, stated that he sent for Dr Manning on two occasions ; tbe first time he came, the second time he was ill. He then sent for Dr Smith, who attended him regularly afterwards. Dr Manning's subpequent visits he understood simply to be friendly visits. In the course of his cross examination by Mr Taylor, he pfated that he told Dr Manning that he thought he was suffering from Bright's disease, but that after Dr Manning sounded him he told Knox that such was not the case. Dr Manning prescribed for him, but Dr Smith, when he was called, would not allow him to take tbe medicine.

Dr J. G Smith, stated, that when at Clinton, a>*out the Bth November, Dr Manning asked him to look at Knox ; he did so, end made no charge. Knox telegraphed for him on the 28th of the same month; he went and found Dr Mann.Dg there ; he asked him to go in and see the patient with him, in a fimilar manner to what Dr Manning asked him to do so before ; he then probed Knox's back ; Dr Manning also did so.

His Worship: Defendant has evidently bad the benefit of being doubly probed (laughter). Examination continued : Knox did not author.*, him to call Dr Manning in ; be (Dr Smith) merely did it in a friendly way; but still considered Dr Manning entitled to a fee.

Judgment was sriven for threD visits, Lls 15s • cost", L 2 ls ; professional fees, Ll I.— LlB 17s. j M'KENZIE V. INCH. Action for Trespass. Mr John Macdonald stated that at the request of the defendant he appeared to ask for an ad'j u.rnment until Wednesday sext. Adjournment granted. same v. JOPP. This wa3 a similar action, and was filso adjournep. JOHN ItrACDOjSTALD V. JOHN GREEN. Claim of LSO 3s Id, ualauce ol a bill of exchange and interest. Judgment for amount claimed and costs, L 2 16*. Upon the case Cane v. M'Neil being called, Mr Ales.. M'Neil came forward and stated to the Bench that he objected to tbe case being- proceeded with. His Worship: Upon what around;?, Mr M'Neil ? • ~ '. Mr M'Neil : That he was merely administrator under an sction of the Supreme Court, and that the Balclutha R.M. Court . bad no jurisdiction over such -a case. His Worship stated that Mr M'Neil was not personally liable, and that the Resident Magistrate's Act fully provided ior such cases. . ' Mr M'Neil then hainded in a legal opinion he had obtained. from his lawyer in Dunedin, and upon which he based his., abjection. '• His Worship referred him to the "26th Section of the .Resident Magistrate's Act. o£ 1867, and told Mr M'Neil that <he ; could thereby teaoh his lawyer law. '.. Mr M'Neil asked for an adjournment, as he was* not prep*sred. ; to' go. into thecase, I owing to the legal opinion obtained. - Adjournment granted until Wednesday next. ■■ ''! /. ...,.-*-,;,"". 4-<ZZZ''4 y' 4\'> Two other cases were was 'no appearance of feglants. '4'4^y_M__W______f_\