Resident Magistrate's Court.

Marlborough Express, Volume VIII, Issue 485, 26 March 1873, Page 3

Resident Magistrate's Court.

BLENHEIM, MONDAY, MARCH 24, 1873,

, (Before S. L. Mullee, Esq., E.M.)

3. SINCLAIR V. EXOItS. OF V?. U. NELSON

Mr TI. 3). Church appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr E. Eccles represented Mrs Nelson. The claim was for £1 2s, balance of rent alleged to be due since the first of February, three weeks at 1 4s per week due on February 22, and 8s for a Windsor chair, total, £1 10s. Against this a set-off was filed amounting to £4 2s 6d, being £l cash advanced, 45s for blinds and rollers, 30s for a tablcj and 7s- 6d for some other snail itbnis, which our reporter did not catch. "

James Sinclair was sworn, and occupied the Court for neatly two hours, but the evidence was given m such a way that it was impossible to report it at length. \n the course of the examination he said Mr Eccles " told a thundering lie !" whereupon he was called to order by the Bench, and told that if such language was repeated he would be committed for contempt. Mr Eccles complained of having been similarly insulted last week, and said if it occurred again he should certainly press for a committal.

Mr Eccles was also sworn, and proved the advance to Mr Sinclair of £l on the security of Mr George Henderson. The sums named for the table, blinds, &c, was also explained by the witness, but owing to the summons having been delayed till the departure of Mrs Nelson, Mr Eccles was not m a position to bring direct evidence upon those items. He apologised to the Bench for the peculiar manner m which he had been compelled to cross-examine the witness Sinclair, thereby detaining the Court.

A good deal of protesting and professional skirmishing took place during the whole case. Ml" Eccles was cross- examined afc some length by Mr Church, during which he stated that the £ 1 had been debitted to Mr Henderson, but he had declined to payit on the score of having already lost a considerable sum m his transactions with Mr Sinclair. »

His Worship m summing up said he had no fault to find with Mr ttccles' defence, it had been conducted m a very proper manner, at the same time he was sure the manner m which Mr Sinclair had given his evidence must have been exceedingly painful to the learned counsel engaged on his behalf, and he regretted very much to see such a .paltry case brovght into Court. With the very meagre evidence before him, he could only allow that the balance of rent, 22s , was due, and also the 8s for the chair said to be lost or not returned ; with reference to the set-off there was sufficient proof of :he £] having been advanced; he should allow 10s for the blinds, instead of 255, owing to the absence of further evidence, and the item for the table he should disallow for the same reason. The 7s 6d was withdrawn by the defendant. Judgment there fjro was for the defendant, as the amount claimed had been previously paid, with 4s. costs. CUTER ?). 11UODES. '* Claim for £3 9s 2d, amount of promissory note dishonoured. Defendant did not appswr. ■ Judgment for plaintiff, with 9s costs. •