RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1993, 24 September 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A.C. Strode, Esq., E.M.) Civil Cases. APPL'CATION FOR A RE-HEARING. Mr Stewart applied for a re-hearing of the case of Eraser v, Curie, which was decided in Court oii Wednesday, on the ground that in respect to an alleged payment of L2 by Fraser to Curie and denied by the latter, evidence had been discovered proving that the money was paid as stated- Mr Wilson for the defendant said that if a rehearing were granted it should be at the cost of tbe plaintiff, as it was quite competent for him to have produced the evidence in the first instance. Mr Stewart objected, and said the costs should he made dependent upon the result of the final issue. A re-hearing was appointed to take place next Friday, the costs to abide the result of a rehearing. RE-HEARING. Mitchell v. Mackay. —Mr Harris on behalf of the plaintiff said that instead of the re-heaiiug that was appointed to take p ! ace, it would be less expense and trouble for his client to accept a nonsuit. To this both plaintiff aud defen lant agreed, and his Worship in compliance with the application nonsuited the plaintiff. Dowse v. Donaldson.—A claim for L 8 balance of account for saddlery. The case was undefended, and judgment was given for the amount by default. John M'Neil and Thomas Powell v. H. Roebuck and Henry Miller.—The plaintiffs claimed L 3 9s for stacking firewood. Mr Ward for the defendants —The plaintiffs stated they were engaged to stack a quantity of firewood at Is per cord.—The defence was, that no agreement was made with the phvntiffs to stack the wood, but with a number of men under the title of Powell, Riil, and Co. It had become necessary to stack the wood in consequence of a dispute respecting the quantity cut.—Mr Ward, for the defence, said it was not the wish of his clients to shirk the payment for stacking the wood, but they did not wish to pay two parties. The defendants were willing to allow Isa cord for stacking, but they thought the account was already overpaid. The plaintiffs were amongst tfye original contractors, and the amount claimed was pot a separate contract.—The plaintiffs were nonsuited! Burnstein v, H. H. Fogle,—A claim for Lll 15s, partly on an I 0 U and partly for goods supplied. Mr Ward for the plaintiff, It was stated that the action was brought because the defendant had sold tbe gqods at a low price to enable him to leave tlje Province,—Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount. Davis v. Rollo.—A claim for L 5 13?, for board aud lodging, and the amount of an I 0 U, L4.—Judgment for the plaintiff, Lo 1 Os, three shillings being deducted for spirits supplied on credit.