MAGISTRATES COURT.—Tuesday.

New Zealand Herald, Volume I, Issue 174, 3 June 1864, Page 4

MAGISTRATES COURT.—Tuesday.

| [liet'"re <*, Kliott Uiwtl. K>'| . -h Haker, Km[., and .1. o'\ei!li j KKAV V. I.KF, I .*\fr. b'u-seli a>kod for co.-ts for defendant in tJiis ca'-o as the piim ention had been abaiid'mrd. I The ('«a:rt doeid- d that the umiul juactice of tlu \ ('ourl should be mDiered to. ; M ( I.l* A N V. I».WY. j Tho same decision as for tf o :ihove case. ! i.aw v. oi;j:y. j Judgement for plaintiff. ! v. i'i::i:>Ti.Y. Judpfonient for jdaintilf. 'iIM i liv v. co.nsTai The jdaintitf, a fanner, at I'apakurt, de]joM d -That on the "Jlst March, he hoard doi'> auionir-t liis slieoji, and found two belonging to .Mr. ('unstable worrying bis sh-»ep, tb.ero wore no other ! (lii'j-s about. A Itoirethor ho found fifteen ,sh':(-]» dead, j and thero are two or three >iill limping, many are | still misMULr. The amount claime<l for the damage j ({one amounts to e.j(i, wlueli is considerably bel"W | the actual loss. | K. Constable: A fanner, at M r aiuku, had lu-aru j onlv from Mr. (il uehy himself of tlio damage done | to Ins shoe]), at th.it tim" ho hud three d.-trs — w as ' lin town at the timr. lie douhteii decidedly whether | the dogs described wen* his. As stmedt g> wciesoiikc his that thoY hail boon mistaken for his, had since l I been poisoned in the neiirhbourhrwid. s«-ld liis | llock in eon>e<juencc of their worried by native | dogs, his own dog's never tom lied any slioep. He i j ofli'ied at the time that if it could he proved that his i dogs had done the damage he would pay the costs. ! I'ut his dogs ought to have been on the road to Drury j I with a Hock of cattle at tin.' lime ; they were in 1 j charge of his men. i | The Court decided that Mr. Gruchy was entitled, I to payment for the fifteen slice]) killf-d, at ess. each, 1 viz., C'JO os. with costs. ; smith v. eou.r.N. ! John Smith : l>r. I'ollen owes me -js. -td. for I work done in carrvi/ig-hrieks at fhe rate of ] ."is. per : 1000. I carried 0000 bricks and N-jO feet (d' timbi'i 1 ! at Is. Id., and '1 tons of barley, at h.s. per (on, and I j box of pipe clay at -s. f»s. ' I'-xamineil by I>r. Pollen : The ptaintill" deni' d anv agreement witli Dr. ro?i<-n a-hi carry in- any .-[»r oifj r quantity and. him of wautinL- two more loads c;irrie-d for the money. Dr. Pollen stated that there was an agreement that plaintilf should carry the whoJo quantity of about in,o<')o bricks, but that when he had taken 'J loads ho came and wanted I Ss. per 1000 instead of l">s. agreed upon. .His reason for refusing to pay plaintiff was because ho had bj-okon his <*unti; <-t and so put him to great expejee and inconvenience. lie admitted the carriage of -)00f) bricks, ami that nothing was said as to when plaintiff was to he paid. Only that he was to have* 15s. per 1(100. The Court decided that plaintiff was entitled to the full amount of his claim. The did'endent having his remedy in an action for breach of comract. j uui'i i: v. .i AMks. | The plaintiff was taken ou trial by the defendant, 1 Mr. J as a waiter at. il 1 per week and his hoard • ids action was for C'_'lbr lodging. He alb d-:ed that 1 Mr. .lames agreed to provide him with lodging and ' that failing to do so lie was bound to pay hi* expenses for lodging jit another place for the two weej %s hi*! was in Mr. .lames cmplov. Mr. James denied en- ' gaging to provide him with lodging, lu.! nev--r did *o i with any waiters in his employ, he paid him the ill ! per week agreed upon and found him in board. i The Court decided in favour of defendent. liltl'NK \UI >S. I Two drunkards were iinod 20s. or -IS hours' hard ' labour.