SMALL DEBTS COURT.—Thursday.

New Zealand Herald, Volume II, Issue 515, 7 July 1865, Page 6

SMALL DEBTS COURT.—Thursday.

(Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., R.M.) The following civil causes were heard by his Worship yesterday. JUDGMENT l-'Oll PLAINTIFFS. Sibbin v. Bell, claim £37 ; Collins v. O'Connor, £9 7s ; Adlnm v. Manners, £20 Is Sd ; Ilale v. Taylor, £4 9s Gd ; Coinrie and Burt v. Priestley, £27 Od ; Asher v. Gribble, £5 Is; Flannery v. Early, £2 9s (id, by default; Mcl.eodand McGeo v. Tierney and Dempsey, judgment against Tierney £42 18s Gd, less £10 received on account; Oreighton and Scales v. Priestley, £9 7s ; Osborne v. Dewhurst, £13 17s 'Jd ; Thornton and Co. v. Uarchard. nonsuits asp .tudgjiicnt roil dependent's. Jervis v. Pellars, £17 12s; the Court was of opinion that the plaintiff in this cause had not made out his case. Carter v. Donovan, £ (•; Friend v Taylor, £1 1 Gd (no appearance) ; Lewisson v. lladdock, Sanders v. Droege ; Kerr v. Burslem. SETTLED. Hood v. Hasted, Creighton and Scales v. Brown, Grierv. Forsyth, Campnoy v. Deunis. Defended and Adjoined Causes. LEL'KIE V. MILLS AND ANOTHERClaim, £18 3s Bd. In this case the plaintiff had been ordered to amend his particulars. The plaintiff had, leased certain premises to the defenodnts. There were 8 tons 1G cwt. of coals on the premises ; also, 10 iron spades and shovels, 5 gallons of sweet oil, a number of blankets, which were to have been taken at a valuation. The case was held to be an action of trover, and some items of account were inserted at various dates. Leave was again asked to amend, and the cause was ordered to be placed at the bottom of the list. 11CBLEY AND RUSSELL V. KELLY. This was an action for gonds sold and delivered. The defendant had been served with notice, but reasonable time had not been allowed him to produce. A nonsuit was taken. BUTT AND ANDERSON V. lIUTCJIEU. This was an action for damages done to a case of drapery, which, in being lifted from a cargo boat, fell into the water, owing to some defect in the crane The e:ise had been formerly before the Court, in that case the plaintiffs sued The boatman, and were nonsuited, owing to the ruling that the action being against tlie lessee of the cranes. It was also stated that the defendent in that ease worked the boat on shares, and was in some measure a partner. James Butcher said that lhe defect spol.en of wou'd not have caused the goods to fall into the water. W. Coombe deposed that when the bolt was taken old. the crane would be altogether out of gear. Mr. Wynn took exception to the declaration, stating I Coombes ought to be joint plain!ill'. | The caic was adjourned tj amend the declaration, uom.us v. ltrssF.i.L. Claim £7 10s. Mr. Bcveridge for plaintiff, Mr. Brookfield for the defendant. This was roi action to recover the above amount from Thomas Russell, late Minister for Colonid Defence, brought by Mr. .Rogers, proprietor of the Criterion Hotel, Olahuhu. 'The ease involved a legal point, which it is important should be generally known. The facts of the ca.-e are very few. Mr. Kussell. late Defence Minister, was returning from the Waikato, whither ho had been on public business in the early part of'llie year ISO!. Tie was riding a horse belonging to the land transport, whi -h had been supplied on account of the public service. When he airived at Oiahuhu his horse was " knocked up," and he put the horse up at Mr. Rogers' stables, asking at the s une time for a iresh horse to carry liim to town. His Worsip thought it desirable that the law governing the ease should be explained to the plaintiffs. Servants of the Crown travelling upon public business were not " personally " liable. Tim claim was more properly against the Government. He put it to the plaintiff whether he would proceed ? The plaintiff, on the advice of his counsel, said he would proceed. Mr. Brookfield asked permission of tho Court to state that Mr. ltussell did not dispute the item of £2 10s., so that Mr. Ilogers might consider that as paid. He objected to pay for the keep of a horse which had been given on public service. The horse was branded in the usual way and the! plaintiff must have known that the horse was public property and that the defendant was engaged on public bu'iness. Mrs. Jannetto fiogcre deposed ti-.t Mr. Russell brought a horse there. He said that the horse was " knocked up." Knew nothing of what kind of horse it was. The horse remained there for five weeks. Tl:o usual charge for a horse was one guinea per w.-ek. Cross examined by Mr. Brookfield : AVitness did not see imvone with Mr. uurse 1. Did not see the horse until some time afterwards. Did not know that , the horse had a brand. The groom told her that one of the Land Transport Corps took the horse away. Mr. Thomas Rogers, proprietor of the Criterion Hotel, said that at the time mentioned ho was in Sydney. His Worship said that from the evidence the plaintifl could have known nothing about tlie horse, | and no mention was made of Mr. l\ussell travelling on public business. " Judgment must go for the plaintiff. 3IILLICENT V. FOLEV. Claim, £22. Mr. Wynn for the defendant. The plaintiff in this case is a horse jockey and trainer. Ihe defendant, Mr. James Foley, is the proprietor of a racehorse named Vanston, and the dispute arose out of a verbal nereement that was alleged by the plaintiff to have been mada with the defendant, that the plaintiff was to have £4 a west for training and keep of the horse named and ten per cent, on all winnings. Iho plaintifl, who gave his evidence in a scarcely intelligible manner, deposed to tlio above arrangement between himself and tho defendant. He said that lie never could find out what the horse won. Mr. Wynn said there was no question ns to that. Tho amount of winnings was £227, but it was denied that any such agreement ever was made. Mr. James Foley examined by Mr. J. B. Russell: I know tlie plaintiff Ho had been in Mr. Rowers' employ and was then out of emplovmcnt. T agreed to give him .-JO*. a week for training "Vanston. T did not agree to _ give liim percentage, but 1 gave him £12 after ri ling one race. I paid the plaintiff £30 in Mr. Maeivady's, Queen-si reet. Mr. Ijcckham said if there had been any agreement it should have been in writing. It was" impossible to say which statement was correct. There was no alternative but to record a nonsuit. Nonsuited accordingly-. ANDEKS"N V. (;.\r. Claim, £10 10s. This ra i\ on application of Mr. Keotlcv, was adjoin ned until next Thursday. (iiKVAN v. :.i'grei;o». Claim £27. This an action for arrears of Wages at £2 a ! week. The defendant is master of a schooner. £7 ! 2s. had been paid into Court. There was a set-off admitted by the plaintiff of £13 12 s . for board and lodging Ihe plaintiff said (hat altogether ho had receive! £15. W. McGregor stated tliat he had paid £2 to Mr. ■..rnilh of tlie Old House at Home, which ought(o bo 'leoucteu from the sum paid into Court. x-<V. U! that reduced the claim to r*' iV" "V 10 psiUntlll wuald hue been "better off had tie taken the money out of Court. Mr. Bcveridge applied for costs.

The Court ruled that it was not usual to giro costs in sucli a ca-e. KELLY T. FARRELL. Claim £22. This was an aclion f;r money lent. Mr. J. B. Kuisell appeared for the plaintiff. Mr. Wynn for the defendant. The plaintiff advanced in cash and an order on a person named Flinton, for the price of a horse sold by plaintiff's father fur £18. There were various minor transactions hy way of accommodation between the parties, the sum of £1 being lent at various times for several purposes. William Flinton said that he bought a horse from the plaintiff's father in February 7, 1864. Witness pave in payment an order on Mr. Alfred Bucfeland. Tlie order was given to Farrell, the defendant. Mr. King, clerk to Mr. Alfred Buckland, proved the payment by cheque of the) order sent by the witness .Flinton. The money was payed, the witness believed, to a person named Farrell. The cheque produced was endorsed "Thomas Farrell."' Thomas Farrell, the defendant, swore that he never borrowed £18 from plaintiff. Was asked to deliver a horse to Flinton, and obtained the money. Gave £9 to .Tames Kelly. Mr. Kussell objected. Mr. Wynn said that his defence was that, whatever the transaction, it was between James Kelly and the defendant, and not with Edward Kelly ; paid £2 to Edward Kelly, which was received on an order. Never borrowed sums of £L at a time of Edward Kelly. Mr. Wynn contended that the case looked very like an attempt to pocket £7 which they had received ; why was not James Kelly in the box ? Mr. Kelly swore that the defendant Farrell never gave him a fraction. Nonsuited. II.SRTNETT V. II'IUNSTRY. Claim, £13 17s. Id. Mr. Ueveridgo for the defendant. This was a claim for wages and a balance of an ' account for goods purchased. There was a set off for shirt-', trousers, and a stiver watch, amounting in all to £G 10s. The plaintiff was to receive £2 to take charge of a canteen at Drury. The defendant stated, that the plaintiff and himself were to have worked a chandlery at Onehunga. He asked plaintiff to take charge of a canteen at Drury during the illness of another man. There was no specific agreement. Considered that £1 a week, as the prisoner had his board, sufficient wages. It was fiMind that the claim of the defendant was simply equal to the set off, and judgment was given for tli3 defendant. CAMI'XEI" V. DENIES. In this case an arrangement was come to. Defendant to confess judgment for the amount; payment to bo made in a month and possession to be given at the expiration of that period. EI.LIOTT V. OH ACE. Claim, £00. This case stands adjourned. The Court adjourned to next Monday.