RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1490, 14 May 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Tuesday, May 13. ! (Before W. H. ReveD, Esq:' R.M.) ' Roche v.Girdwood.— An action to recover L 25 15s 6d, an account, due, for . ! stationery supplied. The defendant paid ■ i LIO into Court, and filed a'set-offfor Ll6. j j Mr Newton, for the" defendant, asked permission to withdraw ther ae%oj£*an& $aid , the money paid into Court more than i covered the amount of the plaintiff 's legal : claim. The account has been running be- , tween the parties since Julyy 1870, about ; whicli time a 'sort of an agreement was | entered into between, them, by which it : wasallegedßc.:he was to become guajrantee \ for a.debt due on an acceptance, by Richd. j Shantion.a bookseUer, to Gir4Wbod. The i nature of this agreement was the subject \ of dispute. The plaintiff alleged that he i merely passed his word to the defendant .I that if Shannon did not p*y him he j (Roche) would. The" receipt of the goods j charged for in the bill of items was not ' denied by the defeadarit. - The defence ; was that the guarantee for Shannon, given j by the plaintiff, was unconditional, and in j p^oof of this it was allegad that the I plaiDtiff asked the defendant to take the • amount of Shannon's debt out in goods, as \ it was inconvenient to pay the cash at the j time. In-the course of the hearing of the case it transpired that Shannon,; whowas ij Dunedin when the acceptance <was matured, went' to the bank; to pay the money there to meet v if, but the money was refused, , S3 the bill had r not , been placedfor'collection. Legal proceedings were afterwards • taken by Girdwood against Shannon. . The- defendant contended that the goods now sued for were to be 1 coiisideredas cashCpaidito Meet? the amount of Shannon's liability to Girdwood. ''A number^ df .witnesiea Were examined on either side. His Worship looked upon the guarantee of Roche to Girdwood tin account of Shannon as con- - ditjional, T|ie plaintiff might be in honor bound to 'pay' the' debt, but" he did not incur any legal- responsibility. ■ Judgment for the amount .claimed, eachparjyto.pay their own* costsl ' Mr Perkuis for the plaintiff, M^ Newton 1 for' the defendant. ~ Smethura^yr Reidr-:A judgment summons on a "verdict foe board, &c. The defendant was examined as to his abili^r to pay. f Ho said he was a bricklayer, and had txsen earning money, but there ytqo two separate orders of the Court existing againsij him. He considered the. c^laim of the. plaintiff was settled by a contra!, for services rendered. The 'Magistrate did not make an order. ' " ' : ' i Edwardsv. Baily— A claim for butcher's meat supplied to defendant.' • The defendant denied his, UabUity, and, said he ordered the goods for one Harrison, who offered to -pay for them. JSarrison- now owned the house formerly in the possession of the defendant. The Bench decided that as the defendant ordered the goods as if for himself, he was liable! He should have made it known to the plaintiff that Edwards was to pay. for them. Judgment for the "amount claimed, with costs. . Grandjean v. Beauregard— A claur of L 9 9s, for board, &o. The defendani <. offered to pay 10s' per week, wMchJht plaintiff accepted. r . ... , , . „. * Magoffin andFraßerv. Mikoz— Aclaim .of .L 9, 16>, on a Judgment for the amount cuumecL witl costs. , „ , ,• Smethurat v. Buxton and Davidjon—

A claim for rent due for occupation of premises at the rear of the Royal Hotel, and used as an terated water manufactojy, &c. The defendant denied his liability. He purchased the share of Rhodes in the firm of Rhodes and Davidson, and the Bench held that he was liable for the rent to t^e amount of 20a, with costs. Verdicts were given for the plaintiffs, with costs, in the following cases :— Arche* v. Jordan, LI 10s ; Jas. Hamilton and Co. v. Ryan, LV 8s Id j Edwards v. BeauwgardjiaiOsSa ; Magbffin and Fraser v. Mrs Rogers, LX 3s 3d ; Duncan M'Lean v. Simeon Luckie, L 6 12s 6d ; Hamilton and Nichol v. D. Carroll, Lll 30s ; Wilson v. Carroll, L 65 16s, on a dishonored acceptance. Howie v. Nightengale was enlarged till Friday, as there was no return of the summons from Hokitika. Guinness v. Buckingham was adjourned for a week to get a return ol service from Christchurch. There were no criminal cases before the Court.