RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.—Tuesday.

New Zealander, Volume XXIII, Issue 2579, 15 November 1865, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.— Tuesday.

(Before Thomas Backhaul, Esq., R.M.) The hearing of the civil cases was resumed this morning. Graham and Co. v. Nicholson.—Claim £lO 155., for goods supplied to defendant's daughter. Mr. Wyp.n for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Beveridge for the defendant- Defendant was put into the box, and stated that' he had a daughter who was married in September, 1863, to a Mr. M'Mahon. Witness was not present at the marriage, but he knew the marriage had taken place. He refused to pay this debt, which she had contracted without his consent. She was only now 19 years of age, and was 16 at the time the debt was contracted. She married without his consent. By Mr. Beveridge: I have had a settlement with Mr. Graham since my daughter was married By Mr. Wynn: My wife has often paid debts contracted by my daughter, but all the debts are not necessary debts, and those which are not I object to pay. Mr. Wynn : Do you object to your daughter wearing a crinoline ? Witness : Now you are pressing me too far, Mr. Wynn (laughter). John Graham, one of the plaintiffs, said the defendant's daughter had been in the habit of getting goods at his store for the last seven or eight years, and the defendant had always paid, and never disputed on the ground that improper particles had been supplied. Mr. Beveridge contended that the articles supplied were not necessaries, and therefore the defendant was not liable to pay. Mr. Wynn, on the other hand, argued that they were necessaries. There was - a quantity of calico for chemises—surely his friend would not say that was a superfluity. (Laughter.) Then there were stockings—he was quite sure Mr. Beveridge would not like to see his daughters going about bare-footed. With regard to the perfumery, the Court could disallow that if it chose, but he did not see why a small portion should not be used. (Laughter.) Mr. Beckham said the- only folly was on the part of" Mr. Nicholson, for allowing his daughters to go and get what they thought proper on credit. If he did not approve of this, why did he not caution the tradesmen against giving them credit? It was a very loose way of bringing up children—that was the real cause of the action. Judgment must be for the plaintiff in the sum of £lO 8». 6d;, which would exclude the p°rramery, and he hoped this would be a warning to parents not to allow their children to run about the town getting credit. Marsh v. PHArMAN.—CIaim, £SO. This was an action brought to recover for damages sustained through the. wilful, setting on of a dog by the defendant, by which plaintiff was severely bitten. Mr. Wynn for the plaintiff, and Mr. Brookfield for the defend en t. Plaintiff deposed : I am a baker. In October the defendant owed me £3 ss. lOd. I went on the 28th October to claim payment of it, about five o'clock in the afternoon. I asked Mrs. Chapman if she could meet my account, and she said she could not. I had had a glass or two of ale, and I went into the back yard for a certain purpose. The behavior of the witness, who was evidently intoxicated, here became so indecorous that Mr. Wynn said he would throw up the case and take a non-suit, which was accordingly recorded. Le Bert v. Cochrane.—Claim, L 36 13s. B<l Mr. Beveridge for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wynn for the defendant. This was an action brought for work and labor don , according to plans and specifications. Decision deferred. Mullender v BrjSHßr—Claim, LSI, for work and labor done. Judgment deferred till Thursday. Sackville v. McLe>d. —Claim, Ll6 2s. 4Jd. Mr. Wynn for the plaintiff, and Air. Brookfield for the defendant. This was a claim for work done for the defendant, who is proprietor of the Kaipara Saw Mills. The defence was that the p aintiff ought to have -iued in conjunction with three others, who were parties to the contract, and wh .had worked with him at Kaipara. It was also contended that there was a splitting of the cause of action, inasmuch as plaintiff had sued the same defendant some few weeks ago, and obtained judgment, and that part of the work for which he now claimed compensation was' then included in the bill of particulars. Judgment deferred.