RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume IV, Issue 1046, 22 March 1867, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TH-OEBDAT. (Before Thos. Beckham, Esq., R.M.) A. BEL! V. J. QTJINLAN. Claim £1514s lid. „ His "Worship gave judgment for plaintiff ior the sum of £7 lis sd. JUGMENTS CONFESSED. Judgments wereconfessedinthe following cases R. Pollock v. D. McKenzie, £17 10s ; J. Downea v. W. Vickery, £8 9s lOd ; E. Buckley v. W. G. Atterwell, £8 14s, (execution to be stayed pending the result of a contra-action.) J. D# Pierce v. A. Pierson, £20. JUDGMENTS FOB PLAINTIFFS. In the following cases judgments were given for plaintiffs W. Posseniskie v. W. F. Falwaser, £5 17s 6d; J. McLeod v. C. C. Clayworth, £13 4s ; T. Gale v. Thomas Smith, £12 16s ; M. A. Poulton v. 'W. Terry, £14 16s Gd ; S. Partridge v. J. De Hirsch £314s 6d; P. Murphy v. A. E. Purchas, £1 lis ; R. Reeves v. Elannigan, £1 5s 6kL; J. Booth aud C 9. v. W. Vickery, £3 15s 3d; Harrris and Laurie v. A. Clow, £11 Is 9d; S. Maude v. E. Potts, £1 6s ; R. Home v. J. Stephens, £5 5s Bd. Defended Cases. F. STBVENS V. A. J. MCITATH. Claim £13, for use and occupation. Mr. Hesketh appeared for plaintiff, Mr. Mac, Cormick for defendant. . The case was settled, plaintiff agreeing to pay C ° St ' C. DAVIS V. A. HOOBE. Claim £7 19s 3|d. for goods. Mr. MacCormick appeared for plaintiff, Mr. Weston for defendant. This case had been part heard last Court day and was adjourned in order to enable the plaintiff to supply a proper bill of particulars. The plaintiff is a small shopkeeper carrying_ on business in Upper Wellesley-street, the claim being for goods supplied todefendant's wife and family. The evidence given by the plaintiff on last Court day was read over from the deposition book by the Clerk of the Court, and the plamtiff herself was briefly re-examined by Mr. MacCormick. She was then to a e„ct. ing and tedious cross-examination re arding t date on which sundry quam appeared the defendant or his wife) were supplied, to

vhorn they were supplied, and how, when, and where, the entries were made. The defcnce appeared to be that the goods were obtained entirely without the knowledge of the defendant, audthathchad never rendered himself responsible for payment of tlie account. Judgment for plaintiff, £7 15s lOJd. B. C. DORNWELL V. S. MARKS. Claim £G 19s lOi for goods. _ Mr. MacCormick appeared for tlie plaintiff, Mr. Macdonald for defendant, In this case the plaintiff's claim was admitted, the defence being that the amount had been paid, and a document was produced which defendant asserted to be a receipt. The plaintiff and defendant wero examined at considerable length and the Court adjourned for half an hour. On the Court re-assembling, Mr. Brookfield ' appeared for defendant in the case T. Gale r. Smith, which had been disposed of earlier in the day, and applied for a re-hearing of the case On the ground that the defendant had been in attendance when the case came on for hearing but being afflicted with deafness was unable to hear his name called. Tlie hearing of tlie case was fixed for Thursday next, the costs to abide the issue. The case Doruwell r. Marks was then proceeded with. A witness named Craig was examined for plaintiff and the learned counsel on either side having addressed tlie Court, his Worship reserved judgment. J. WAITE V. F. DALTON. Claim £18 Lss 7M. Mr. Brookfield for plaintiff; Mr. Wynn for defendant. The original claim in this case liad been £26 odd, but plaintiff asserted that a sum had been paid by defendant, reducing the claim to the amount sued for; but the defendant denied having paid such sum as alleged, and argued that liie original claim was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. Mr. Wynn submitted that the plaintiff must be nonsuited. Ilis Worship said the Court had no power to record a nojasuit, and under the JKesident Magistrate's Court Act, 1562, it was doubtful ;is to whether the Court had power to grant costs. The ease was accordingly struck out, on the ground of its being beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. B. BACH J. CASEY. Claim £3 2s, for work done. Mr. Brookfield appeared for defendant. This was a claim for lengthening a chimney, &c., for the steamer Gemini. Plaintiff had entered into a contract with the defendant to supply machinery for the Gemini, and to fit her up as a twin-screw steamboat, with a minimum speed of 5 miles per hour. Tlie contract specified that the whole of the machinery was to be supplied in good working order and condition. Plaintiff alleged that lie had performed the contract according to agreement; but defendant having liad the landing stage raised, it became necessary to lengthen the chimney by three feet, and to make certain other additions, which he (plaintiff) did, and which being in addition to the contract, he now claimed payment for. Capt. Casey, deposed that the plaintiff had undertaken to complete the contract for £380. Plaintiff had performed certain work in addition (o the contract for which lie had been paid, bringing the total amount paid up to £423 7s Sd. The construction of the chimney was part of the original contract, and it was absolutely necessary to have it completed to its present length for convenience and safety. When paying plaintiff a sum of £<13 in addition to the amount of the original contract; it had been understood that all matters in dispute had been settled. Mr. J. B. Eussell also deposed that on the 11th of December all matters in dispute between the parlies had been settled. Judgment for defendant. J. "WAITE V. G. HOLDSHIF. Claim £5 10s, balance of account due for the construction of a punt. Mr. Brookfield appeared for plaintiff; Mr. MacCormick for the defendant. Defendant put in a set-off for timber supplied, which, not being proved to the satisfaction of the Court, his Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, leaving it for the defendant to bring an action for the set-off. D. MCLUDOE V. E. J. MCNEILL. Claim £12, amount of a promissory note. Mr. MacCormick appeared for plaintiff; Mr. Wynn for defendant. This was an action to recover the amount of a promissory note which had been given by the defendant on account of a debt due by his father. The terms of the note in question were somewhat peculiar. ' I promise to pay, &c., ■whenever I can." The document was unstamped, and Mr. Wynn therefore objected to its being received in evidence, on the ground that it was an agreement to pay, and should have been stamped. His Worship said if it could be proved that the document were not an agreement to pay, but an 1.0. U. it would be receivable in evidence. Mr. Wynn contended that it was an absolute promise to pay, amounting to an agreement or promissory note, payable on demand, and, therefore, should have been stamped in accordance ■with the provisions of the Stamp Act. Mr. MacCormick argued that there was no proof of the instrument being a promissory note, as it was not payable on any definite date, and, therefore, not requiring to be stamped within the terms of the Stamp Act. His Worship said lie was of opinion that the document was an agreement to pay money, and although no dates were specified it was understood, under such circumstances, that payment should be made after a reasonable time had elapsed. _ Mr. Wynn said the document having been given on account of a debt due by a deceased person, some consideration should have been proved, which had not been done. His Worship said that in a document of this kind there must bo an inference that there liad been a quid pro quo. Mr. Wynn then called the defendant who deposed that ho had given the document without receiving any consideration from plaintiff. Cross-examined by Mr. McCormick: Defendant said he had received a paper bearing his father's signature in exchange for tho promissory note on which plaintiff founded his claim. An arrangement was ultimately come to between the parties, defendant confessing judgment for £10 ; and agreeing to pay the costs of Court, the other costs to be borne by each side I separately. J. B. SMITH V. J. OGILVIE. Claim £4, for work done; a set off being pleaded. Mr. Hesketh for plaintiff. The question .in dispute was whether the plaintiff had been engaged ut 8s or 6s per day. His Worship ultimately gave judgment for plaintiff at the latter rate for 10s 6d. allowing the set-off put in by the other side to the amount of £115s. 6d. CASES ADJOTJBNED. The following were adjourned : — Jame3 v. Evaslie: T. Merrigan v. J. Braund, £1 10s ; T. Gillebrand v. Dr. Drake, £9. The Court rose at 5 p.m.