RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2942, 24 July 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. Dr Docken v. A, Frazer, junior.—L2O, for professional services in attending one John Jones, who was in the defendant’s employ, and who was injured by a scutchingmachine. Mr Catamore for tho plaintiff; Mr Stewart for the defendant. For the defence, Mr Stewart characterised tho charges as extortionate, and asked the Magistrate to discountenance such charges as tending to prevent persons of limitvd means seeking professional advice.—The defendant stated that the boy Jones received three slight bruises through the accident, but no bones were broken. The distance from the Octagon to the works was about two miles. At the third visit the boy’s mother said to the Doctor “He had better not call again until sent for,” when he replied “He had another case on the road, so that a call would make no difference. ” He called three times afterwards. The reason why the Doctor was fetched on the third occasion was, the arm had become slightly hotter through water not being applied through tho night. Dr Docken having stated it was unnecessary. Mrs Jones, mother of the boy, gave evidence to the same effect, excepting that she did not remember the doctorsaying it would make no difference. Unit was on the fourth visit John Jones, the boy who had been hurt, gave evidence as to the number of visits by and to Dr Docken. The plaintiff was recalled, and said that on the night (the 9th of May) on which the defendant called, inflammation had set in, which did not subside until the 13th.—Dr Burrows was called, who said L2 would he a fair charge for the first visit, on subsequent visits, 20s to 30s, according to position. In case of being called by an employer, his charge would be regulated by his position, for the employed were sometimes better off than employers. Judgment for the plaintiff, L 9 10s with costs.

Usher v. Duncan.—Ll 5s flcl, balance of account for survey and professional services. The defendant pleaded indebted only to the amount of L 4 For the defence it was stated that the sum agreed upon was L2 8s less than that charged. Judgment for the plaintiff for the sum charged with costs. Bird v. Brainton.— L 8 6s 5d for balance of account. The debt was admitted. Judgment by consent for the plaintiff. Joel v. Goodger. -LlO 17s 6d for empty casks. Mr Haggitt for the plaintiff. Mr. Howorth for the defendant, The defendant resides at Cromwell. In his evidence the plaintiff said the casks were in the defendant’s possession. For the defence it was urged tnat no proper demand had been made for the casks, and that he was willing to return them on storage being paid for them. The action should have been brought for wrongful detention, and therefore he claimed a nonsuit. Mr Haggitt replied, and held that the contract was for hogsheads as well as the beer. His Worship ruled that there was a case to answer. The defendant on being called said that he was served with a summons on the 16th July in Dunedin, that his books were in Cromwell, and not having access to them, he could not prove the date on which certain casks were returned, The beer on arrival turned out bad. An acceptance was given which he refused to pay, and gave notice to that etlcct. He sued in the District Court for carriage, and obtained a verdict for L 25. He was prepared to deliver the casks on proper application being made. In reply to Mr Haggitt, the witness said they had been in the open air for two years. On a former occasion he paid for the casks, and sold them to another brewer. Ho had been asked by Mr Joel, his travellers, and by an agent at Cromwell in a “ jocorious way” for them.— Mr Howorth applied for an adjournment to enable the defendant to refer to his book to prove delivery of one barrel.—Mr Haggit said that bis client Xjmuld ra* her abandon the 1/3 bd for the barrel tjifiii .consent to an adjonrnm'mt. Mr Howorth pressed fpr the adjournment on other grounds, and it was accordingly adjourned for three weeks.

Sunderland v. Reid—The defendant appeal'd in answer to a fraud summons testate whp he had not paid L-l 13s, for which judgment had been given against him in the Court. He earned about L2 a week, -Evidence was given that defendant, when work was constant, could earn L2 10s a week. He was ordered to pay the amount within 21 days, or be imprisoned one calendar month.