RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume IV, Issue 1076, 26 April 1867, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., 11.M.) The usual weekly sitting for the recovery of small debts was held yesterday. ESTATE OF ED3IONDS V. 3ICKENZIE. This ease stood for judgment from last Court day, the 18th instant. The question turned upon the construction of the terms of a deed of assignment. His "Worship said that the case was not sufficiently complete to justify the Court iu giving judgment and recommended that the plaintill' should take a nonsuit. His Worship's suggestion was acquiesced in bj r the counsel for plaintiff, and the case will no doubt again come before the Court. ITCItST & CO. T. COCHRANE. This case was also called on for judgment, having stood over from the last sitting day. The question at issue was whether the owner of a vessel being a " vessel at home" is responsible for goods, furnishing, &c., ordered by and supplied to the master in presence of the owner. The authorities laid it down that masters w ore liable for goods, furnishings, etc., supplied to his order while the ship was at home, unlass otherwise stipulated. Judgment for defendant. The following undefended cases were disposed of: — JCDGiIEXTS l ; OR PLAINTIFFS. Low and Motion v. Judd, £10 (is,- Low and Motion v. Maher, £1G 12s Cd (defendant to pay £1 a week) ; Young v. Alpc ; Asher v. Londergan, £L 13s ; Harrison v. Frazcr, £15 ; Fisher and Co. v. Fagg, £3 los 7cl; Union Steam Sash and Door Company v. Mowbray, £";! Is 3d ; Clark v. McLeary, £1 3s CM ; Clark v. Mur'ra}*; Kelly T. Robinson, £10 13s ; Wilson v. McLellan. r Adjourned. Buchanan v. Butcher; Stodhcad r. league. WILSON V. MCLELLAN. Claim £19 Ss. for wages. Mr. MacCormick for plaintiff, Mr. Bcveridge for the defendant. The plaintiff was a busliman who had been engaged by the defendant to cut timber. The defence was that Mr. McLellan was in partnership with two other persons named Dickson and Pope, and that flic claim should therefore have been against the firm. It was stated that defendants and others were contractors for cutting timber on Mr. Bonar's property, situate at the Ivaipara. Bonar had become bankrupt, and the contractors were unable to obtain any money until his estate had passed through the Court. His Worship said it was an exceedingly hard case that these poor men should be unable to get their wages when they became due. If a man were engaged by a firm, tho names of the parties should be disclosed to him. Judgment mustpass for plaintiff. BUCKLEY v. GUIED & ATTERWELX. Claim £11 ss. Mr. Weston appeared for plaintiff ; Mr. Brookfield for the defendant. At the opening of the case an argument took place between tho counsel on cither side as to the production of tho original tender made by the plaintiff and it appeared defendents' solicitor had received a notice to produce a tender of a certain date to which he replied that there was no tender of tho date stated in his possession. The defendant Guird on being called deposed that there was no tender of tlie date specified, but that the tender under which thecontract was performed was in Court. Mr. Weston called upon Mr. Brookfield to produce tlic tender ; the latter refused to comply, and after some further argument Mr. Weston proceeded to examine the plaintiff, who deposed that lie engaged to do certain brick work at £3 per rod, at the new Lunatic Asylum, and also certain day work. Mr. Brookfield argued that there had been a splitting of the cause of action, that there had been, no written contract, and that the parties had been carrying on a running account, tho plaintiff being engaged merely by piece work. One of the defendants deposed that the work was to be performed subject to the approval of Mr. Weaver, that tho work had not been properly performed and an arch had to be rebuilt at a cost of £11 10s. His Worship reserved judgment until Thursday next. T. COYLE V. J. r.OLOUS. Claim £1 3s <kl. Mr. Wyun appeared for the plaintiff, and judgment was given for plaintill' by default. Mr. Macclonald subsequent!}' appeared tor defendant and applied for a new trial, which was refused. FLEMING V. STEI'HKNSON. Claim £5 2s, on a dishonoured order. Mr. Miicdonald and Mr. Beveridge appeared for plaintiff, Mr. Wynn for defendant. Mr. Beveridge, examined by Mr. Wynn, doposed that he knew the signature to the order to bo that of the defendant. The document >

was not stamped when signed, but «-■>- ' quently stamped for the purposes of tt 3l t- Se " Phmtiif deposed lha ? km Home in Mr. Macdonald accepted a nonsuit. „ T G • JAKINS v. CSISPE. JVlr. .1. B. Bussellappeared for plaints ■ Ar Beveridge for the defendant. > Hr. G. S. -latins deposed, that lie hadm-ulr assignment for the benefit of his creditor Abbott had 20 tons of firewood on wit-'n ' estate which he sold to Mr. Crispe at 7s r-) 5 tol V , -^ acl - subsequently applied for mr m and defendant said if ho were pressed fr,™'' 1 / amount he would be down on Palmer andp' 35 ' Cross-examined : Did not knoiv wood was delivered or not. er tLe Plaintiff deposed, that he was the under the deed produced. Had pureh debt for which the present action was brcLi" 6 and which was iucluded in the deed. n ' Mr. Beveridge contended that the* liii' „e ticulars was defective, there was tto ' f-f delivery ,and that Abbott was the entitled to receive payment. " Person His "Worship said he would look ovdeed, and givi; judgment next Court dar C ;. walsh v. j. Dtrxx. Claim £2, lor services as nurse. Judgment for plaintiff, 30s, to be n-M stalments of 10s a week. " "* :i; " This concluded the business, and tl>, r ■ rose at 2'30 p.m. Loa,t