RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Thursday. [Beforo Thomas Beckham, Esq , RM]

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XX, Issue 2203, 12 August 1864, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Thursday. [Beforo Thomas Beckham, Esq , RM]

BLACKBURN Y. MAITLAND. This case was leraanded from laii week. Mr. Brookfield for plaiatifl', and Mr. Wynn for the defendant. Case adjourned until next Thursday.

ACKLAND Y. BRINCKLET. No appearance

WYJSTN Y. JirtliEK. Plaintiff nonsuited.

WYNN Y. DODD. No appearance.

COOPER Y. COOPER. Settled out of Uomt.

rar v m'cvnx. Claim of £1 is. 9d , for goods supplied. No a2>pcai'<uice of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff.

HOIi^ON Y. DRraiVOND. ■ Claim to leoover the sum of £4S and inteicst theioon, money lent Mr. Wynu for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff.

liCWIS BROTHERS Y. itAEDOX. Defendant confessed judgment, *nd agreed to pay £1 a. \ve«k in. discharge of tbo debt.

LEWIS BROTHERS Y. TAILOR. Claim of £3 ISs , for goods supplied, 2^o appeal ance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff.

STIRLING Y. BOSTD. Settled out of court. FOLEY Y. PATTERSON. Defendant confessed judgment for £13, and agieed to pay £1 10s. per week.

JAMES Y. STEWAET. Claim of £1 Is., for conveying passengers fi O m the Queen stieefc Wharf to tha ship ' Swiftsuie.' No appeamuce of defendant. Judgment for the plaintiff His Worship thought the chaige was an exoibitaut oue, and the sooner theie weie licenses granted to wateimen the betfcei.

THORNTON AND CO. Y. ROGERS. Mr. Wynn for plaintiff. Defendant confessed judgment for £30. His Worship advised defendant to go to Messis. Thornton and Co. and see what anaugenients could make with them for a weekly paymeut.

ELLIOTT Y. EVERETT. Defendaut confessed judgment, and agieed to pay £1 down and 15s. a week aftervraids.

HARVEY Y. HOLL VXD. Settled out of couifc.

Bh VKE Y. MCDONALD. Claim for £11 12s. 9d., foi timbei sold ami delivered. Mr. Russell for plaintiff No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plamtifl.

WRIGLBI Y. LYES AND FAGG Defendant confessed judgment

GRAHAM Y. "tIARSDEY. In this casf, which, was settled out of cowt, Mi j Russell applied for costs, c ayiurr tli.it uo notice li.itl | been given to him about* the matfcei. I Two-thiids of costs granted I

POSSENTSKIE Y. 3 YiU Claim of £21 ISs. 6d for goods supplied to defeadant. No appearance of defendant Judgment for plajutiff for full amount claimed. EATON AND DBWOLP Y. SIMEON. Mr. "VVynn, who appeared for defendant, applied for a remand iv this case for a week, m oiclei t> obtaia the appearance of a material witue^. Mr. Bevendge, for plaintiff, objected on account of the non-appearance of defendant. Eemand gi anted.

HANN Y. HOBSON. Claim to recover wages. Defendant's plea was that he had not employed the plaintiff Mr. Beveridge for defendaut. Michael Callaghau deposed that he had a contract from Mr. Hobson to build some culverts. He had employed defendant on tho work, aud offered to pay him. Judgment for defendant with costs.

BRVST Y. BROW> Claim to lecover the amount of £6, money advanced, to defendant and. his wife on behalf of vioik to be peifonned by defendant. Mr. Hughes for plaintiff, and Mr. "\Vyun foi defendant Mr. Wynn said that before the case went on it ■would be necessary that the coats of the former action, •which amouuted to £1 fc7s., should ba paid Mr. Wynn said that his defence was the fact ot the action being brought in a wiong foim , it bho t'd have been under breach of contiact. Mr. Hughes said that the pction was to iceo\ci the amount of cash advanced to defendant's ■« i»o The pliaintifF deposed- Whendefeudantenteied nfc:> my service he requested me to let his wife hava il a week. When I advanced the money I told a cai, cnlci, in my employ, to enter itfoi me as I could not wiicc myself. I gave defendant's wife £i 10s foi the lust three weck3 I gave her £1 a weeV an 1 the fiu !li ■trcck I only gave her 10s. Ihe defendant himself ha.d £1 10s. fiom me, which make-, the amount I claim, viz , £6. The defendant promised to pay me back iv the course of twelvemonths, which has not been been done. By Mr. Wynn • At the time defendant asked me to advance Al a week to his wife he had euteicd into a. contiact -with me The defendant said that he had enteied into a contract with, the plaintiff, and had asked him to let his wife Live £I a week. Ihe \ih)le amount advanced by the plaintiff to his wife and himself v.is £5 10s By Mr. Wynn. The money was a lvnuce 1 to me in part payment for work I had peifonned foi him. I was with him seven weeks, and no ne\u hid any settlement His Wwship said that the piopei comse of action would have been foi plaintiff to bung an action against defendant for breach, of contract. The best way would be for the parcies mtcie^ted to try and adjust their claim as regards the worlt poiformetl by defendant Case nonsuited.

BROWX Y. BETHEL AND OTHERS Claim to i ecover a cow, Jo&t by the plaintiff aud discovered Laving been illegally pounded and sold. Mr. Brooltfield foi plaintiff, and Mes'i" 3 . Mem man aud Kns^ell for two of the defendants. The plaintiff deposed th.it i>i April last he had been tbe owner of a cow, branded indistinctly JIN or NiU on the near tump She was a light stiawberry cow with a broken horn. Abiiit January or February, 1863, I losb the cow oft the Auckland ruaand failed to find her, although liu'eavouiedm -every way to do so. I nowpioducc my licunsc to depastuie stock. I obtained the license fiom one of the defendants I sa>v t'je co v last about three or four months ago at ISp^om , she was then in a very bad state. She was in half milk and in very good condition when I lost her. I saw the cow m a padd( civ occupied by Mi. Scott vi Epsom In consequence of lnfonnitiou I leccned I saw Mt. Bethel and the poimdkeeper IanI 'an tliem pievious to seeing the cow m the paddock I told them that the cow belonged to me, aud the pouudlcecper asked me if I knew th« brand. I toll' him that it was an indistinct one and desuibcd it. I bought Vhe cow fiora Ah. BnckLuid with the brand MN. The poitndkeeper told mo that tho cow Lad been impounded in company with a calf by Mr. Bycioft's , son, aud that they bad Icrii linpoandcd from the Auckland run. I tol I them that I was a license-holder, and that the cow had been illegally impounded, and lequuel her lestitution. JBethel w,it not piedent at tlii^ lim<\ X ?aw Bethel the next day, and s>pokc to him in ,i similar manner. , He saia he would nnte to Byci oft about the matter, and that it wa«j qutfe evident that they had done - ivrong, that it was a bad job, and that they would have to settle it the best way they could. X offered to come to an amicable .•urainjcim.ut in the matter. The cow was identified by xiiy sojs. The value of the cow when I losb her was £16 L v By_lfi. Meinman 1 1M thu cow in Januaiy or % February, 1563. Ido noL own any other cow. lam not aware that I was only entitled to mn two head "-' of cattle. I had no other s^ock running except a 'Lor&e. The cow had no cilf with her when J lost ' Ker,'nor w hea I «aw her in Scott's paddock. The cow remained on the ruu for about a ye ar. When I lost her, I immediately advert i ed her, aud took '■ other btep^ to find her. I should be very sorry to : "Jjivo more than £9 for the cow when I found her.

. John Brown, sou of the | ltViff, had scon the cow J u Scott's paddock, r.nd cul 1 po--i'ivo)y awear to n er. • David Keiiely, a Lbmuei of Mr. Mayne, wholired close to Mr. Biown, kin.w fie cow m dispute and desciibcd her. Estimated, the value o£ the cow when lost at £14 01 t'l."), iiid who 1 recovered at £7 or £8. Duncan Anderson Inn a po.mdkocper, at Newmarket. I recollect Mi. Biown corning to me about a cow and calf thai «a> niipoiiM led by an entry in my book. I o'aa\o th.it ou the 14th of Apiil there woic nino head of cattle impounded by y.m >^ Bycioft, who was acting as rangoi Amon? the mob impounded, theie was a cow and eilt \\ Inch was cl.iimod by bho plaintiff after they had I on sold by auction. I hare had a convciSnlion wit'i Mi Belli' l and Mr. Bycroft about the cow, ami they seemed to think that the cow did not beloug t > the pliinlift at all, and said that ho could take c dugs ag.uusfc them as they should not take any fuithei steps iv the matter. The defendants weie <iwiuo by whose authority tlie cow had been impounded. The cow fetched £7 at auction. Thefi sfc tune plaintiff was spoken to about the cow, lie sai-l <;ho «as biaucled nthor JW or RW, but on calling on me a sec <rul Unio, told me that the cow was biandod \-M. 'Uio cow appeared to Mr. Scott and my-elf toboh.uuled either VN or NN. Ido not lemcmbci li^mjii* .my couveisafciou with Mr. Meara about the cow .it, all. Joseph Bycroft lam a u.udon, and have been in the h ibit of acting «i 3 such. T believe that Mr. Bethel and Mr. Me.us .ac waide.is. They act with me as suoli They -\vei c ashns; as tueli m tlie month of Apul last My sou w.i, actmc, .vsiangei. By Mi. Mennnan . An .i|>p r iitioinnent of two head of stock was made to e.ich lo nehoidur At the time the ap]>oi tionment ■\> I=3 iii.i 'o, it was decided by the wauleus in a bye-law t > tlio effect that one horse should lepiescnt two ho i<l of cattle. By Mr. Bevendsjo Ihe altciations which ajipear in the book with icfu^nc to the apportionments are iv the h.uid anting ai Mi. Bethel. I do not knowwhethoi puj uohoo \\as given to Mr. Blown of the nnmbci of cttle t)i it he \\.as allowed to depasture. TJiei«j %s,i> no necessity for giving him notice By Mi. Russell 1 1 il i not know whether the alteiations m the book weie mule befoie tho confirmation of the pie 'o is minutes By the Bench 'I ho cow was m the possession o£ Mr. McNaughtou in the jcar 1562 Tho natnie of the cvppoitioiimenb v. do duly g.izetteil. 3?raucis Bethel : J im one of the w aideus and one of the defendant-,. The alieiation which appeals iv the book «as male ihe following meeting, after the appoit'onuienfr on th 2jfch \pul By Mi. Russell I lie impounding of these cattlo had nothing to do \\itU tlie .Uteiatiou as made in the book. By Mr. Meiiiman • Mi Bi own gave us no notice of thedesciiption of the cattle he was going to depasture. Mr. Meiiiina.ii contended they weie entitled to a nonsuit Even supposing that it was pi oved that his clients weie lesponsible, which he utteily denied, still theio was no e\idence to piove the amount of the pound f jgs, md whether they did not amouut to the wliole of the money for which the cow Avas sold. Joliu Bj croft deposed to having been ranger in the month of Apnl last, and to having leceived no notice fiom the plaintiff as to tho description of stock that lie \\ as dei^istuiiug. I impounded tho cow in question fiom the Mount Roscoe load. I knew the cow puoi to my impounding her She belonged to V> McXaughton some yens pie\iouily. Theic w. 1 . t.ilc uinnnig with her which I lm- , ouudc 1 v it i the cow and the rest. J)j Mi Memiiiau . I cannot swear whether the calf bel vi v >\ to the cow. Hi, Wo- hi]) '-aid that weia the cow illegally impounded ]n Ignieut would be necessarily given for the plii.ntift to the amount of the value of the cow 1 « hen inipoimrie 1. The legality of the impounding, liowevei, icqiuied consideration, and he would give judgment in tins case on Thursday next.

MOODY Y. HIGGI2TS. Cla»m to lecover the amount of an account for woik peifoimed for the defendant, and which account ~uas d sputed as being overcharged. Mi. Brookfield for plaintiff, and Mr. "Wynn for dcfei claiifc Biggins : I am the defendant iv this action ; and have paid £10 into Courb. I admit a poi'i-m of each item in the account, but not the \\h )1o) 1 o I cannot say the exact amount that I have pant into Coiufc on each separate item. I got the woik i. allied, and paid £10 into Court on the whole .unoiiub claimed. Clnrles Spray • lama working smith. In June last I « as employed Messrs. Moody and Co. I remember being employed on a boiler belonging to the defendant. It was used for soap-boihug. [Boiler heic descnbed ] It is a description of treble boiler. I was sent up to Mr. Higgins premises to inspect it, and give nay opinion about it. I asbitted iv moving it, as it could not well be reP'lted. on the piemises. My son assisted me to it,io\e it. He is also in the employment of the pLvntiffs. "We had considerable tiouble in removing t^e boiler. I then had to clean it. It took some houis to remove. My son was occupied with me the whole of the time I was lemovmg the boiler. I consider £1 19s 7d a reasonable charge foi its removal. I did not Jrill the holes in the toiler with the exj ccphon of a few. I considei ISH 6d. a fair charge > for preparing the plates and rivets. Four of us were en ployed for two or three days in caulkingand riveting it. The whole work was efficiently performed. I ha> c no hesitation in «aymg so. Ml. Moody, one of the plaintiffs, certified to the leasonableness of the various charges made, and produced one of the books of the firm, m which the vauous items were entered, the number of persons .employed, and the time that was occupied in peiforming the work specified. The case was here adjourned until Monday next, as it was past 4 o'clock, and there were several other witnesses to examine.

COJEDES AM) DALDT Y. WILSON Settled out of court.

JOHNSON Y. WHITE. Settled out of court.

OLDROTD Y. COLE. Adjourned until Monday next.

ROBTN&Oy Y. OV3EY. CA-RLltf Y. PICKHOMI These ca^es ■« ere adjournetl until Thursday next.