SMALL DEBTS COURT.—Thursday.

New Zealand Herald, Volume III, Issue 681, 19 January 1866, Page 5

SMALL DEBTS COURT.— Thursday.

(Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., R.M.) Case for Judgment. iiro".;.i3 coorEß y. imeti. This was a case for judgment as to who should p:iy costs. His Worship said, after hearing the application muiUi yesterday by the counsel for the defendant", tin; Court having given overv attention, the arguments used would seem that tho defendant wns really aiid truly the aggressor. He took tho law into his own hands, compelled the plaintiff to bring tho action, whereas if ho had suffered the animal to remain where it was, and brought his action, ho could have fat en that action into any Court ho choao. Therefore the plaintiff is not to blame. The Court thinks tho costs should be £9 10s., and not £21. UNDEFENDED CASES. Nonsuits wero recorded in tho following casos : — Taylor v. Fierce, £14 IGs 6d ; Fagg v. Dickenson, £5 19s 8d ; Messenger v. Allen, £3 ; Morrin and Co. vMaule, .€lO la 'M ; Tlyor v. Anderson, £2/5 9s ■ i 1-1 ; Grahnut and Co. r. 11. J. H. V. Stewart, £2 lis Gd. VERDICTS EOR PLAI.VTIFKS. Verdicts were given for plaintiffs in tho following cases :—Smith v. .McLaughlin and McGarrick, £12 18s ; Denbv v. Beaton, .-£lB 2s 6d : Honby v. CLir':son, £12 3s 2d; Hayles v. Burry, £1: 13s (id; Hales v. Moonov and Co., £0 15s lid ; Muckie Brothora v. Camwcll, £6 10s 9d ; King v. Ingles, £S lis; Marshall v. IjlicK, £5 ; JDiekson v. .Evjns, £20 ; Brown v. Driimmond, £1; Fleming v. ('ox, £13 3a 'til; Philips aud Son v. ii. Barry, £3 7s ICd; Philips and Son v. E. it. Wood, ,CG 7s Od ; Philips and Son v. Gleeson, £•> Ms 5d ; Philips and Son v. Blakey, £1 •la lid; < herrett v. Haddock, £0; Bowdon v. Allnutt, £~ Ss Gd .U'DOMENTS COXFF.SSEIJ. fn tho following cases defendants confessed judg ment:—Flintou v. IS. Unlock, £1 13s 6d ; Creighto e and Scales v. ICinlbeh, £13 13s 'id; Harris and v. Harris and Turner. £32 ; Ohrisp v. timith, £5 2" 7d ; Ifggcrton v. Cooke, £T1 is ; Cooper v. Ford, £5 Colton v. Foots, £29 IGs 6d. Ati.rouii.VKn cAScs. Tho following cases wero adjouruod : —Trimmer v. Baber, £3 I ts. Gd. ; Cunningham v. Qilir.er, £12 Os. 6d.; Lewis v. Hampton, £30; Graham and Co. v. Frazer, ,£.j l Js.; Alexander, Bros- v. Buck land, £30 ; Hassan v. Cracroft, £3 55.; Vickery and Maaetield v. J. Graham, £*1 IDs. De I'esded Cases. JASIKS V. DOENWEIiTJ. Claim £2 for wages. Defendant plcadid a sot-oil ot £2 for a dog lost by plaintiff. His Worship said there could be no set-off against wages. He must pay the wages and bring an action for tho loss of tli'?. dog. TILISU V. BURCESt-'. Cle-im £19 for money alleged to be due by defendant to plaintiff. Mr. Brookficld for plaintiff. Mr. Wynn for the defence. John Tiller deposed : In 18G3 I shipped a quantity of ballast to the ship Portland. For a portion of that ballast I have not been paid. Tho ship wont away £33 18s. in my debt. Shortly after the ship went away I saw Burgess. lie camo to my house, and said he had been aboard the ship Portland, and the Captain had handed him £19, saying " give that to Father Tiller, and give this letter to Brown and Campbell." Burgess said ho had paid tho £13 to Brown and Campbell when he gave them the letter. I did not authorize him to pay it to Brown and Campbell. Ho has told me more than onco that th» monoy was paid to him for mo. I went over next day to Brown and Campbell about it, but, did not get the money. I have never received tho money from either Mr. Burgess or Messrs. Brown and Campbell. By Mr. Wynn : I don't recollect having given Mr. Burgess orders to get the money for mo from the ship. G. T. Keetley deposed : I recollect Burgess and Tiller meeting in my office last year. A conversation took place between them respecting a sum of money paid to Burgess onboard the ship Portland. Burgess said as he met the ship Portland going out of the harbour the Captain called hiirfon board and handed him £19, saying, " Give this to Father Tiller." The Captain also gave him a letter to Brown and Campbell, burgess went on to say that he gave both the letter and "the monoy to Brown and Campbell. By Mr. Wynn : My impression was tho money was given to Brown and C'ampboll for Tiller before Burgess saw him. Mr. Wynn, for the defence, argued that tho defendant was not acting as agent for the plaintiff either by appointment, either expressed or implied The case, therefore, should have been brought against Brown and Campbell, instead of against Burgees. Mr. Brooklield said that the defendant had admitted that he was acting as a r-ort of agent, by ■saying that that tho Captain had given liim the money for Tiller. Judgment reserved until Thursday next. 11L00MITKL1) V SMITH. Claim £3 10s. for rent and goods supplied. Mr. Wynn appeared for tho plaintiff. Mr. Beveridgo for the defence. Judgment for plaintiff, 17s. 3d. IIAItKIS AND LAlJltlK V. HAIUIIS ASD TUKNEtt. Claim £39 13s. Id., for goods sold and delivered. Mr. Wynn for plaintiffs. Mr. Beveridgo, for tho defendants, admitted the liability of defendants to tho extent of the amount for which tho goods were sold by public auction. Tho caso was adjourned till Tuesday to amend particulars. ROLTON' V. C0BB0LI). Claim £12 for board, lodging, and washing. Mr. Wynn appeared for tho plaintiff. Mr. Beveridge for tho defence. A sot-off of £11 18s. was put in, and £2 was paid into Court. George Rolton deposed: I furnishod defendant with board and lodging from the 20th January, 18G4, for twenty-eight days. There was no agreement as to price. He told me as soon as lie got work he would pay mo. I consider £3 a week a fair charge for himself, wife, and two children. I never askod him for money. I admit C 6 ss. of the set-off. Defendant was sworn and deposed to tho truth of tho various items in the set-off. Judgment was given for tho £2 paid into Court. Costs to bo paid by plaintiff. lEE v. roe. Olaim £13 ss. for work and labour done as Ist offic«r on board tho schooner Isabella on the voyage to and from Hokitiku. Mr. Beveridge for plaintiff; Mr. ;Wynn for tho defenco. Mr. Wynn, for the dofenco, stated that the defendant had engaged a man of the name of McAlister to work a vessel from Auckland to Hokitika with a cargo. On coming to Napier tho Captain made an I agroement with the plaintiff to work as first or Becond officer. He thon sold tho cargo and cleared out with tho proceeds, and as a solace to the plaintiff gave him an order on Mr. Roe. Mr. Roo repudiated any responsibility in the matter at all, he having only made au agreement with the man McAlister, who was to find all the seamen. Judgment reserved until Thursday next. PICK V. ATKINSON. Claim £25. Thiß was an action for trover, for wrongful conversion of a cart. The defence was that there was a lien on tho cart. The facta of the case, as elicitod from the evidence was, that the cart wa-< lent to a person named Mabin, who broke it, and it waß sent to defendants to bo repairod at Mabin's expense. Mftbin not having paid for the repairs, tho cart was kept by defendants. The plaintiff'now sued for the value of tho cart. Judgment deferred till Thursday next. CniTHAM V. SENIOB. Claim £25 for rent. Mr. Brooklield for plaintiff; Mr. Wynn foi defence. Tho claim was for one year's rent of a cottage ir Union-street. The case was adjourned until Tuesday noxt, t< produce a certain document. The Court then adjourned, all other eases beiDg pu off uutil Tuesday next.