RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 5762, 27 August 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, August 25. (Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., RM.) W. C. Ferguson v. B. Whitton.—Claim, Lls 193 sd, for work done. Mr Macgrcgor appeared for (ho plaintiff, and Mr MacDormott f■**r the defendant, who pleaded that the plaintiff had not jet finished the contract entered into,—After heating the evidence, His Worsitip nonsuited the plaint IT. . . W. Lovell v. the Jusi-iu-Timc Quartv.-mmmg Com-pany.-Claim, Ll2 23 lid, for goods supplied. Mr Mount appeared for the plaintiff, and stated that the goods had been supplied to the original owners of the mine, who had since farmed themselves into a company. For the recovery of the claim he relied upon the case of Edwards v. the Grand Junction Railway Company, 1 Moason and Prompton, in which it had

been decided that tho Company woe liable for obligations incurred by its promoters— Evidence having pfivon on betxall of tbo plaintiff, tbtt C&Sd WAS ShujOlirnGd till tho following day. Friday, August 26. Francis Mecnan v J. Wood.—Claim, LI 103 lid, for goods supplied.— Judgment was given for pmmM'Kelvoy and Johnson v. Robert Galt.—Claim. L 5 10s 61, on a promissory.note.—Judgment was givan for plaintiffs. _ . T , Outhrio and Larnach v. P. BrUnton.—Claim, I>l 0s tkl, for godds supplied.— Jddgtbeilt tVaA glvOu lor plaintiffs. n , J. Winton v. Honry Scrutton,—Claim, Icri, .or mint supplied. ’ mouat upfif&rcd for plaintiff— Defendant pleaded that he had filed his schedule.—Judgment was reserved. „ _ Hunter Brothers V. Charles Sheriff.—Claim, 3s, balance duo on a contract for work.- Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default) , . . Q. llUnter v. J. fckmness.—Claim, LI 103, for bricklaying Work done. Mr Macgregor appeared for defendant.—Plaintiff stated that he had done the work for plaintiff In a proper manner.— refendOitt sa/d the work was badly done, so much so thftt it had to Dd pulled down and put up again at witness’s expense. The plaintiff was in reality a barber, and not a proper bricklayer. Plaintiff cross-examined the defendant with some acuteness, but did not affect his evidence Ills Worship Bald plaintiff might ho a barber, or ho might be a bricklayer—he thought plaintiff would make a very goed laVvycr. However; there was ev.dontly something Wrong with tlio work. Judgment would ho giVon for plaintiff few P's pnlh. M. liayman v. T. Payne (lielfion) —Claim, Ll3 18S PJ.—ln this previously-decided case Mr A. Bathgate applied for a rehearing; Mr Adams opposed _on behalf of plaintiff.—His Worship reserved his decision, W. Lovell v. Tho Just-in-Timo Quartz-mining Company.—Claim, Ll2 2a lid, for goods supplied. This case wan rosutnod, Mr Macgregor now appearing for defondantß Judgment was reserved. 11. Mercer v. T. 11. Bolton.—Claim, L 33 llfl 7d, for goods supplied.— Aftof evidence had been heard the Case wan adjourned for a week. Hogg, Howison, and Nishpll V., J. Smith.—Claim, L3210a, for phlteS sfipplied.—FlWntlffswerfi nonsuited, with costa. , . , , Alfred Corbott v. John.Tolfer.—Claim, L2 —Judgment for plaintiff for LI and cats.