RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1977, 6 September 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This 1 ay. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) DRUNK NNESS, •Tphii Brown, on bail, was fined 10s for this’ offence. «Iharies Whitry, was fined 20s or in default 48 hoars imprisonment. Francis Grimndl was fined Li’s or 24 hours’ im-p-iso ment ; an i Tho uas death, an old offender, was fined 20s, or in default 48 hours’ imprisonment. Civil Cases. M'Kay v. Mitch 11 -A claim for LlB. I’ase struck out there being no appearance of the pi dntiff. M'Namara v. Craft. —A claim for L 3 10s cash handed to the defendant by W. Scully for the use of the plaintiff. Tbe plaintiff stated that in Juno last he was working at Hntchis n’s brick yard, and whilst working hr 'ke his knee-cap, and was taken to the hospital, and when there he asked Scully, a m ite of his, to draw his wages and hand them over to Craft , the defendant, to give to him. The d fendant had received 1,5 fro o Scully, and the defendant had given witness 30s of the amount and he now claim :d the balance.

Cornelius Scudy deposed that the defendant was foreman of the bri kyard, and that after the plaintiff broke his knee-cap, the witness received Lls Com Mr Hutchison. L 3 of which amount be oaged to the present pontiff. The witness handed the LIo to the defen : ant in payment of a d bt due bv the witn ss and M'Namarato the defendant. The witness had never given L 5 to the defendant for the plaintiffs use. He hail handed over L2 beside on Scully’s account, but that amount he had subsequently drawn, and hj d handed to the plaintiff. The defendant stated that he kept the Water of Leith Hotel, and that the plaintiff ajjui Scully boarded at his house, and between thenj, hey owed him 1.37 ; on account of that he had received Llsfrm Scuby, He had given the plaintiff some small sums of money whist he had been in the bo pital, not as money due to him but but merely out of kindness. Judgment was given f >r the defendant. Hans'ow and Sampson v. M'lndoe—A cla m fo LI 4s, for repairs to clothing. Che pla ntiff -dated that the defendant brought the clothes to him, he knew they b loured to another man, but he told the defendant that he should ioo< to him for payment. The. defendant denied his liability, he was a carrier, and in March last he brought a parcel of clothes from a man named Kirkwood, to bo repaired by the plaintiffs. He

did not tell the plaintiffs that the charge for repairing was to he entered to him. By the plaintiff ; You told me that Mr Kirkwood’s account was stopped. I swear you did not tell me that I was to be held respo isible for the repai s. Judgment for the plaintiffs for full amount da me I, and costs.

Wh.ttington v. (irah.ro —A claim for L‘l "s fid, f.r carriage for a boat from the Waipori to the Lee S ream in 18 >3. Mr Ward appeared for the defendant, and p eaded the statute of limitatio ,3. Fmm the evidence it ippear. d that the boat had been ca’ru.d by the plaintiff, but th t it was damaged in carria e, and was ultimately used for firewood, and that the charge for carriage w s excessive. —The M aeistrate said he must hold the plea of the defendant to be a good one, and the judgment would be for him, with co ts. >llen v. Li-inrstone —A claim for L 3 H's for posts and rails. Mr Stewart appeared for the defen ant. The plaintiff stated that be rented a piece of land from the defendant, and fenced it in, the defendant promising that if he required the land for other purposes, he would allow the plaintiff the value of it. By Mr Stewart: I took the land for one year. Ido not recollect the defendant tel ing me be required me to give up possess on of the land. I was sued for the rental of the la id. I recollect the defendant telling me he would pay for the fence if it suited him ; if it did not, he would let mo remove it. —The defendant stated that he leased a half acre of land to the plaintiff for one year. The plaintiff then said that he would have to fence the land, and asked the clef' ndaut what he should do with it when he left, and the -witness told him ho could remove it if he lik d.—Judgment for the defendant, with costs.

Allen v. .Sullivan.—A claim for L 5. far dam ge caused by the trespass of the defendant’s pigs.—Mr K. ff. Ward appeared for the defendant. —The plaintiff and defendant were neighbors, and the fence being defective, the pigs of the defendant, which were always at large, came into the plaintiff’s yard on the 30th April, and ate two bags of potatoes, and destroyed some straw and pollards -The defendant stated that the land was unfenced, and that his pigs did go into the plai-.tiff’s yard, and the plaint ff’s pigs and cattle often came into his yard ; but when the plaint.ff complain, d, he sold the pigs at a sacrifice for quietness’ sake.—Th" Magistrate gave judgment for the plaintiff for L 3 10s and costs.

Marshall and Copeland v. M'Ewen. —A claim f .r L 7 10s for detention of five casks and LlO for damage by such detention, making a total claim for Ll7 10s. Mr Harris appeared for the plaintiffs The defendant state ! that since the claim had been made to him he had delivered the five casks to the plaintiff . Mr Harris admitted that the claim for the casks must be abandoned, but he addressed the Court on the question of damages, and cited various authorities on the matter Mr Harris stated that the plaintiff .lid not wish to press for substantial damages, but for such a sum as would cover the costs of the action. The plaintiff was examined to prove that the casks were never sold by them, in fact the beer sent out by them was always sold liable to the empty ca ks being returned. The Magistrate assessed the damages at L2, and gave judgment for the plaintiff for the amount and costs.

Cottle v. Bethune. —A claim for 23s for damages cause > by the trespass of defendant's sh ‘ep. and for loss of time. The Magistrate gave judgment for the plaintiff for 16s and costs. The Court then adjourned.