The Courts.

Lake County Press, Issue 699, 12 March 1896, Page 2

The Courts.

MAGISTRATE’S COURT, ARROWTOWN. Wednesday, March 11. (Btfore S. B. M'Carthy, Esq., S.Mi) AN IMPORTANT CASK.

| W. Main (Cromwell) v. W. Murphy. Claim of £3o—£s damages for detention of buggv, and £25 (value ot buggy). Mr W. Turton appeared for plaintiff, and Mr S., H. Turtou for defendant.

Thia- case was to the following effect; Main.brought a buggy to Murphy to repair, which, plaintiff stated, defendant agreed to give it a complete overhauling and repairing for the sum of £7. This evidence was (Corroborated by W. M’Laughliu and J. L. Scott, who stated that defendant informed them that the contract price was £7. Defendant, in his evidence, said that he agreed to do certain repairs for the sum of £7, but, on taking the buggy to-.pieces, discovered other necessary additional repairs. ;He informed plaintiff of it, and the latter instructed him to make a job of it. The extras amounted to £3.55.

Evidence was given, by A. Jopp.stating that lie had a conversation with.plaintiff, who recognised the extras, -and considered themiworth 15s to £l. W. Holt gave evidence of a contradictory nature to .1. L. Scott. '

His Worship, in reviewing the evidence, stated-that the facta of the case were as follows :—lt appeared to him that the plaintiff (Main).entered into >a. contract with Murphy for a complete renovation of his buggy anti the sum agreed upon was £2. This evidence was borne out. by. Main, M‘Laug)iliu, and Scotty He held that in the versions given by both plaintiff and defendant, the Plaintiff’s version appeared to.hiniito.be the more probable as according to defendant’s statement a-- person, entering on a contract would be liable to. incur mure expense than the article was worth. According to Holt’s evidence, that of Scott’s must have been manufactured while in the box,, but he was not prepared to. accept it as manufactured evidence. He would.enter up judgement as follows : —Defcndent to deliver to plaintiff the buggy mentioned in the particulars of demand, and pay the sum of L2 lOs damages for detention. If the buggy is not delivered up forthwith defendant to pay to plaintiff the sunt of LIT 10s, being the value of such buggy ; and also pay L2 10s as damages. Defendant to pay plantiff his costs of action amounting toJLS 10a Cd, made upasioliowrs Witnesses’ expenses L 4 7s 6d, solictors fee L2 2s, and court costa L2 10s. By consent plaintiff to. pay defendant the sum ol L 7 for repairs to buggy..

WARDEN’S COURT, QUEENSTOWN. (Before S. E. M‘Cart by, Esq., Warden). Monday, March 9.

T. M. Shore aud E. Sainsbury, extended claim, 3a, Upper Shatover.—Granted. W. Lyons, pi ole cl ion extended claim, Skippers Creek. —Granted.

James Hogan and M. O’Brien* application to purchase sections 57 and 58, block 19*, ohotover River. Objected to by Sew Hoy Bm Bench Company, on the ground that the land was; auriferous,—The Warden said he visited the land which Messrs Hogan and O’Brien wished to he would decline making any recommendation, for ke purchase, although he did not think ft wa» auriferous, but there were other aspects-, which might effect the mining- interests if it. were made a freehold. The land was ins close proximity to auriferous ground and was. of a shingly nature, which might slip awayr at any time and might be the cause ol actionagainst the miners.. MAGISTRATE’S COURT, QUEENSTOWN. (Before S. K McCarthy, Esq., S.M.). Monday* March. 9th 1896. Elizabeth Reid v J. Selwood, Parawa. Claim.for goodaaupplied.(£l4l3a)— Verdi efr for amount with costs £1 Is, and nrofeasional fee,. 10a 6d.„

Tuesday

H; N. Firth (Receiver of Gold Revenue); v. Ellen McKenzie. Claim for rent due onagricultural lease; Arthur’s Point.—Judgment for. amount with Court costs lls.