RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 2039, 17 November 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. Ellen Dufty, for this offence, was fined 30s, or four days’ imprisonment ; and William Snrles iOs, or twenty-four hours’ imprisonment. Civil Cases. J. H. Harris v. Dyer.—A claim for Id 7 I6s 2d, balance of account for professional services. Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount by default. ADJOURNED CASE. Jones v. Stumbles. —Mr Stewart applied for judgment on a point raised in this case respecting the non-cancellation of the agreement stamp! Tire agreement was an agreement fpr a lease, stamped with the usual five-shilling stamp- —His Worship mled that the cancellation clause did not refer to agreements of this class, but only to agreements requiring to be stamped with a shilling stamp.--The defendant said that he took the land of Mr Street, and the agreement was that the place should be fenced at once. It.had not been fenced He took the laud fur pastoral purposes, and to get some timber .of)’ another person’s ground. At first he wanted a [case of a road through the ground, but that was refuied, and he consequently took the ground, with (fie condition that it should he fenced. The land vvjtfioqt being fenced was useless to him. He had tinned cattle upon it, but had lost one in consequence. Other people’s cattle were running on it ami eating off the feed. A road had been cut through the land of which lie knew nothing at the time of taking it. Were it fenced, tha' road would not damage the property. Mr Street had promised that the fence should he put up both before and since the agreement was entered into. The roa 1 had deteriorated tho laud to the extent of LSO z, y,-?ar. —Mr Street said the defendant ought to stop tl“i road. In cioss-examin-ation, the defendant ho could not got the timber off the adjoining l*ud without going across this laud, and did not require to remove any more timber. He did not take the ground fur the sake of the lim-

ber but for the grass. There was nothing in the loose agreeing to fence the ground. He did not stop the road through the property, because he thought Mr Buchanan was. going fence the land. In re-examination by Mr Stewart, the defendant said he would not have given the same amount of rent for a ro.il as for the prnperty. He expected to get it for about LlOa year. His Worship said it appeared to him whatever converse tiou to 'k place the twins of agreement would have been in writing, and the conditions inserted in the lease. It seemed to him the chief object of the defendant was to obtain access to the timber in the adjo'ning property. He had removed the timber and now disputed the rent due He believed the rent charged was a fair rent for the property even under the circumstances stated Judgment for the plain 1 iff, 1.50 with costs. I!. S. Dods v. Robert Ellis. —A claim for Id 69s Id, for goods supplied. Mr Haggitt for the plaintiff; Mr Stewart for the defendant. A set-off was pleaded for horse-hire, alleged to be for horses engaged by the defendant’s brother. The plaintiff said that his brother travelled for him for some time, but that a horse was kept for him, and he had no authority to hire horses on his account. The defendant on examination said that he applied to the plaintiff for the hire of a horse engaged by Mr Joseph Dods, and was told by him, if he could not get the money of the latter he would see him righted. This was denied by the plaintiff. The defendant said ho was not a great bookkeeper. He made the entry in the hook when he sent the bill in, that if he did not get paid he might go back and make out another bill. He had never on any other occasion than that for which he claimed to be paid lent Mr J. Dods a horse as commercial traveller for his brother. —Mr R. S. Dods, on being recalled, said that no conversation took place between him and the defendant, in winch Mr Ellis said he had him to fall back upon if his brother would not pay. Nothing that the defendant and his witness —a boy who said be was sixteen years old —said on that point was true. Mr Stewart wished for further evidence to establish the truth of the statements. His Worship did not think it material to the case. From the evidence he would arrive at no other conclusion than that credit was given to Joseph Dods, and finding he could not recover the money, he tried to fall back on his brother. Judgment for the plaintiff, LI2 Ja Od, the amount claimed, deducting L 4 6s, admitted to be owing, [Left sitting.]