RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1989, 20 September 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Pay. (Before A . 0. Strode, Esq., R. M.) DRUNK AND DISORDERLY.

Emily Dye>-, for the above offence was fined U)s ; Annie Mansfield, Lo, or 14 days’ imprisonment; A. M‘Gregor, 10s ; Robert Johnston, having been imprisoned since Saturday night was discharged ; John Laurie 10s ; Elizabeth Johnston, 20s ; Edward Coonan, 20s ; John O’Grady, 10s.

Civil Cases. Mills v, Cornwell. —A claim for L 25, damages for breach of agreement. Mr Smith for the defendant. The plaintiff claimed under the agreement, for the use of a hording as an advertising position, the full value of the sum paid ; for damages as breach of a special agreement; and thirdly, that any money received from Mr Talbot should be paid to the plaintiff. —Richard Mills, draper, said that lie agreed with Mr Cornwell to have the use of the boarding at the corner of Rattray street and Princes street as an advertising medium. Mr Isaacs had had reserved for him ten feet on each side of the angle formed by Rattray and Princes streets. Before coming to an arrangement with Mr Cornwell he had several interviews with him. He at first asked LdO for the privilege of using all the boarding in front of the new building, except that reserved for Mr Isaacs, but ultimately agreed for L 5. After using the hoarding for some days, Mr Isaac’s bills were (pasted over his, and after some short delay and dispute with Mr Isaacs, it was arranged that boards should be nailed higher np, for the reception of Mr Isaac’s bills, and the witness was allowed all the rest of the space. When Mr Talbot arrived, Mr Cornwell told witness that he was going to put up boarding inside the original boarding, for Mr Talbot's hills. Inconsequence of that, be (the witness) put up boarding and canvas nine feet the level of the street, so as to shut Mr Talbot’s bills from view These Mr Cornwell ordered to be taken down, remarking that witness hUd got the wrong min to deal with. Mr Cornwell had not allowed him to put up hoarding or canvas since. He considered that any advertisement placed in the position of Mr Talbot’s bills tended to injure the boarding as an advertising medium for him, by withdrawing attention from the the witness’s advertisement. It had cost him for hills printing to put on that boarding abmit L2O. Be could not exactly state the damage done, but it interfered with his business. In cross examination, the witness said the boards taken down by Mr Cornwell were the most valuable porion of the boarding for advertising purposes. —Mr Smith, in defence, said, that Mr Talbot had been given permission to paste bills, he believed, gratuitously, on a scaffolding nearer to the building by 10 or 12 feet than the boarding let to Mr Mills. He contended he had a right to do this. Be stated that Mr Mills had put up the canvas over a gateway, and Mr Cornwell had pulled it down, as contrary to express agreement ; and that Mr Mills had also driven nails into the boards contrary to express agreement with Mr Cornwell. The defendant gave evidence in confirmation of the statement of Mr Smith. In cross-examination, the defendant said, the right to post hills by Mr Talbot on the hording was not charged for, and if be went to the theatre during Mr Talbot’s performance at the theatre he was admitted free. A witness, named Parker, confirmed the terms of the agreement; and another, named Atkinson, said that the orders to pull Mr Mills’ canvass and boards bills were put up. His Worship thought the weight of evidence was in favor of the defendant. He could hardly think that the agreement entitled the plaintiff to the use of all hoards put up in front of the building, and as gate-ways were reserved, he considered the defendant justified in pulling down boards or canvas nut up in contraventon of the contract. Verdict for the defendant.

Porter v. Purvis.—A claim for Ll4 5s 9d. The sura of L 9 Is 3d waspsid into Court, and the remaining amount was objected to on the ground that 1941bs of beef charged had not been received, and that Gibs of sausages were unfit for food. Judgment for the plaintiff, Ll4 0s 9d, with costs. Pritchard v. Collins.—A claim for Ll4 undefended. Judgment for the amount, with costs, by default. Same v. John Stevenson.—L4 5s Gd—undefended. Judgment for the amount, with costs, by default. Same v. John Cooper.—Ll Bs—unde fended. Judgment for the amount, with costs, by default. Simpson v. Kerr and Son.—L4 0s lOd, for meat supplied. The younger Kerr appeared, who denied all knowledge of the account. Judgment for the plaintiff, with costs. Edwards v. Williams.—Ll Is Gd, for damages sustained through non-completion of a pair of hoots. The plaintiff said that the defendant made him a pair of boots, one of which would not fit him. He undertook to alter it and make it fit, hut instead of doing so he so spoiled it that it could not be repaired. The plaintiff said that after several attempts to make it fit, file defendant acknowledged he had made them off od lasts. The boot wrapped over at the instep, and pinched him in the toes so that one wrapped over another. The defndant got him to pay two sums on account, 8s and 7s, and then 4s, the last sum, on condition that the refractory hoot was re-bottomed.—Judgment for the plaintiff, LI Is, sixpence set-off being admitted.

M‘Donald v. E. M. Binney, L2 7s, for empty casks supplied to Cameron and Binney. Judgment by consent for the amount claimed.

Wilson v. Poynton, LG 10s Bd, for professional services rendered.—The amount was not disputed, and a verdict was given for the amount, with costs. James Mackenzie v, Poynton, L 8 2s Gd, a claim for use and occupation of a house, and firewood for thirteen weeks,—Mr Wilson for the plaintiff. Judgment for the plaintiff, L 4 11s, with costs. Eccles v. Ellis, a claim for L 7 5s lid, due on a judgment obtained in April last not

satisfied.—The Magistrate said it must be proved by the plaintiff that the defendant could pay, and -would not pay before execution could issue for sums under LIO. The summons was dismissed.