MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2397, 8 December 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

OHBISTGHUBOH. Wbdkbsday, Drobmbeb 7. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., 8.M., and Dr. Prins, J.P.] Omi Cases.—ln the case of Hutchinson v George, a claim for £74 19a 4d, which was heard on November 30th, judgment was now given for plaintiff, with costs and (solicitor's fee. Hutohinson v George, £36, for servioes as aooountant and brokerage on the raising of certain loans. Mr Gresson appeared for plaintiff, Mr Izard for defendant, who pleaded not indebted. After hearing the evidence, which was very lengthy, the Magistrate said it bad been shown that plaintiff had done considerable work for defendant, and, as his charges were not unreasonable, they would be allowed. Other portions of the claim, however, if allowed, would be making defendant pay commission to two parties for the same transaction, a system of doing business the Bench would never countenance, unless a special agreement could be proved. These items would in this case be struck out. Judgment for plaintiff for £ls 15s, with costs. George v Hutohinson, £36. The same counsel appeared for their respective clients. This was a claim for rent of furniture, soventy-two weeks at 10b per week. It appeared that early in 1880 plaintiff became guarantee to Mr White, a furniture dealer, for the payment;"by defendant of a sum of £69 for goods. Bills at long dates were drawn on defendant by Mr White. Two of them had fallen due and had been dishonored. Plaintiff was sued on these defaults, and judgments were given against him. There was still due to Mr White a sum of nearly £3O on the tame account, defendant having paid the balance after judgment had been obtained against plaintiff. Defendant had acknowledged that he owed the money which plaintiff had guaranteed, but put off its payment until debts owing to him by plaintiff had been settled. He now stated that he had never heard of the present olaim until after he had sued plaintiff. Plaintiff denied this, saying that he had given him notice that unless seourity was given for the payment for the furniture, he should charge hire for it, and failing to get the required security he had brought the present action. His Worship said that there was no evidenoe that any terms had been mentioned for the hiring, which was important as proof of snob agreement. In the absence of this proof the claim must fail. Judgment for defendant with oosts.—MeLelland v Lowe, claim £2 18s 6d. Mr Irard appeared for plaintiff, Mr Stringer for defendant. In 1878 plaintiff sold part of his estate near Weeden's to defendant on terms of deferred payment extending over three years. On the assessment for the land tax the name of plaintiff was plaoed on the roll for the portion of the land he had not sold, and also for the section he sold to defendant. In due time ho received notice to pay the tax for the whole for the year ending Deoember 31st, 1879, amounting to some £B. He then took steps to have his name removed from the roll with respect to the part sold to defendant, and served a notice to the latter, as required by the Act, requiring him to do his part with the same end. On going to pay the tax, however, he found that defendant had negleoted to have his name put on the roll, and it being then too late to do anything else, plaintiff paid the whole sum, and now sued for the amount as above, that being the proportionate share of the tax for 131 acres, bought by defendant. In answer to Mr Stringer, plaintiff said that when the tax was paid defendant had not cleared the land. He had only paid 15 per cent, of the purchase money ; he was therefore not entitled to his conveyance. Mr Stringer applied for a nonsuit. He quoted the clauses of the Aot defining the persons who were liable to pay the tax. He oontended that plaintiff had no right to exemption until the freehold in the land had passed from him, and if even he had a right and did not avail himself of the means provided by the Aot to rid kimself of liability, and he had not done so, he was, of course, left answerable for what he was set down for on the roll. Mr Izard, in reply, said that the arguments of counsel for the defenoe would have been appropriate if used by the Land Tax Commissioner, but as between the parties to this suit they were rather out of place. The Land Tax Act was not of the most workable description, but the intention of it was undoubtedly to tax the person who derived benefit from the soil. In equity defendant was certainly the person who should pay the tax. He was the beneficial proprietor of the land, and as such was the fitting subject for the impost. As to details, plaintiff bad done all he could to rid himself of the responsibility, and defendant had neglected to perform what he was expeoted to do. There was no machinery provided to compel him to make the declaration of ownership required by, and that was one of the defects of, the Act. If defendant objected, to be plaoed on the roll, he ought to have brought his case before the Commissioner, who would have decided it on its merits. Mr Mellish said he thought that in equity defendant should pay this money. He was, so long as he complied with his agreement to purchase, to all intents and purposes, the owner of the land, he was the only one who oould deal with it, and notwithstanding the fact that he was paying interest on the un-

paid balance of the purchase money, it must be held that he was the only person who derived benefit from it. On these grounds, therefore, unless Mr Stringer could produce precedent for a contrary course, he would give judgment for the plaintiff. Mr Stringer had an idea that a similar case had been dsoided 'in accordance with his view of it, and the matter was allowed to stand over till Deoember 14th to give time for reference.

—Judgments went by default for plaintiffs in Simpson v Willcox, £3 7s 6d; Mason, Struthers, and 00. v Beese, £6 8s 9d; Bartram v Mole, £4 16s ; Baird and 00. v Whitfield, £1 15s; Same v Walsh, £1 12s 6d; Same v McKay, £1 2s 6d ; Manning and Co. v Berryman, £1; Hindman v Hogg, £3 12s 6d ; Freeman v Dnndas, £ll 15s ; and Bedpath v Brown, £1 7s Id. Fitch v Crowe was adjourned till December 14th.

Thursday, December 8. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., B.M.]

Dbunkbnnebs. —T. S. Montgomery, for being found drunk, was fined 10s. Cruelty to A Hobbb.—William Hall was charged as above. F. W. Delamain stated that he was asked to look at the horse on the day before, and found it suffering from an incurable disease in the fore feet. It limped as if in great pain, and must have been suffering considerably. Mr Stanley Edwards deposed that he saw prisoner take the horse into the river at the Government bridge and afterwards down Colombo street. Prisoner was trying to force the horse from a trot into a canter. It was writhing with pain. Prisoner was using a stick or whip with severity. Another witness gave similar evidence. Mr Hill, veterinary surgeon, corroborated Mr Delamain's evidenoe as to the state of the horse. It was perfectly useless for work, and could not travel without suffering great pain. Prisoner said he had had the horse for three or four weeks, and only took it out twice in that time for exeroise. He had caused its shoes to be removed and altered a day or two before. As this statement was found to be correct, and the circumstances not appearing to the magistrate as bad as some cases he had seen, he said he would not deal so severely with accused as otherwise would have been the case. Acoused would be fined £3, and must pay costs, viz.:— Veterinary surgeon, 10a 6d ; stable, 5a ; cab hire, 3b ; and Court coats, 2s; in default fourteen days' imprisonment. The horse to be destroyed at once at the expense of accused; if that was not done the polioe to lay a new information.

Civil Cases. —Ohuroh Property Trustee! v Fateman, 19s 63, for rent and damages to a house ; -judgment for plaintiff for 12s rent.— Ruesel v Stenhouse, olaim £5 12s 6d for medical attendance. Mr Salter for plaintiff. This case, which had been before the Court twice previously, was now settled by judgment boing given for defendant, with costs.— Helmore v Bennet, £4 4j for professional services ; judgment for plaintiff for £3 13s 6d, costs to be divided.—Clark v Meikleham, £1 16s 2d ; judgment for plaintiff.—Judgments were given for plaintiffs by default in Bedfern v Teague, £1 10s ; Osborn v McAllister, £7 10s; Wheeler v Bose, £5 13s 6d; and Adams v Jack, £1 3s 6d.

Of 1350 cases of smallpox reported in Chicago on January Ist, 40 per cent, have proved fatal. By far the greater number of oases occur in the Fourteenth ward, where the more degraded portions of foreigners live. In that ward 40,000 people have not been vaccinated, and of 10S deaths in September, 81 were in that division of. the city.