RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume IV, Issue 1130, 28 June 1867, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tjiuksday. (Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., H.M.) The following cases were disposed of ai this Court yesterday:— judgments confessed. In tlio following cases the defendants confessed judgment:—A. Buekland t. S. do 12s Cd ; T. liusscll v. A. Primrose, £(5 10s ; W. Ivirby v. J. McNeil, £10 2s; Cruiclcshank and Co. v. T. Polton, £18 14s lid; W. J. Yonng v. P. O'Connor, £10 13s 9d; A. Dornwcll and Son y. Fagg, 17s 3d; Kemblo and Lumpkins v. G-. Priestly, £3 los Old ; Coutts and Burgess v. J. Whitlock, £5 12s (Jd. JUDGMENTS FOR PLAINTIFFS. In the following eases judgment was given for j plaintiffs : —Oornors and Drew v. Whitlock, £0 (Js ; Yaughaa v. Kemp, 13s Sd; Wiikins v. Danks, £2 Is lid; Ch Garret v. G-. 1). Callen, £1 os 3d; L. Turrell v. J. Beaton, £2 10s Cd; W. Dudley v. J. M. Mowbray, £0 18s -id. MCCAUL V. 0. NESBITT. Mr. Joy appeared for the defendant in this - case, which had been decided on a former oc- : casion, and applied for a rehearing under-the ' Ive.sideut Magistrate's Court Act, ISSB. lie said that judgment had been given for plaintiff," through the nbscnce of a material witness, of whose evidence the defendant was not aware, lie (Mr. Joy) believed that by aid of the witness referred to, the judgment could bo reserved with costs. The application will be heard on Saturday, the amount and costs to be paid into Court, pending the .result of the re-hearing. Defended Cases. n. WAItBUItTON V. E. EVANS. Claim £7, for use and occupation. Mr. Beveridge for plaintiff, Mr. Joy for the defendant. Judgment confessed for £517s Gd, and accepted on behalf of plaintiff. r. P. FAC.Cc Y. E. ELLIOT. Claim £2 19s sd. Mr. Maedonald for the plaintiff. In this eaic the defendant had been engaged as manager of the Court Houso Hotel at a weekly salary of ten shillings with board, &c., At the time of taking over the premises certain goods werejplajued iu the defendant's hands which she was to sell, and to account for to the- plaintill". The defence was that the goods were merely entrusted to the defendant for sale without liability. His Worship nonsuited the plaintiff, DUDLEY V. .MCCAUL & BUG-. Claim £0 10s 2d, for beef supplied. Mr. Beveridge for (ho plaintiff; Mr. Maedonald for the defendant. In consequence of the abscnce of a material witness, Mr. Beveridge took a nonsuit. j. adeane v. n. MOKItOW. Claim £12 8s (3d. Mr. Maedonald for the plaintiff; Mr. Wyuu for the defendant. This case was nonsuited with costs, the plaintiff not having the money to pay the hearing fees, p. r. fagg y. KNOX. Claim £11 13s 9d for refreshments, accommodation, &c. Mr. Maedonald appeared for the plain tiff' Mr. Wynn for the defendant. The plaintiff deposed that the defendant and two other men came to his house and were sup- j plied -with certain refreshments, accommodation, &c. Plaintiff asked who would pay, and the defendant undertook to settle tlio whole account. Cross-examined: I producc the day book in which I made the entries. I do not know the difference between an hotel and a public house. I transferred the items regularly from the slate on which they were first written. To the Bench : I cannot tell when the first entry was transferred from the slate. Mr. AVynn : There is just one question. I see the word "shauts, two shillings." What .is that F Witness: You know very well what a " about is, you are as well acquainted with a public house as I am. Mr. Wynn: It was the peculiar spelling I did not understand. The' wife of the last witness gave corroborative evidence. This was the plaintiff's case. John Knox, examined by Mr. Wynn, deposed that he had never authorised Mr. Fagg to put down the sum claimed against him. llad never made himself responsible for it. Merely owed ■ the plaintiff for two days' board and lodging,; and two glasses of brandy. : This was the whole case. The learned counsel on either side having ad-; dressed the Court, His Worsliip said wherever the plaintiff had 1 supplied items above 20s he could not claim pay- ; nient, and the law in regard to this point was ■ strictly just. It was impossible for the Conrfc to > Hay in the.present case for what amount the dp-

fondant was liable, as the bill of particulars did not disclose the dates and'speciGe items. Mr. Macdonald took a nonsuit. 4 STACKPOLE V. FEJiTON. Claim £5 for a retriever dog. Mr. J. Husseil appeared for tho plaintiff; Mr. AVynn for the defendant. In this eiso the defendant" obtained a dog fi'om the plaintiff for the sum of £5, a fortnight being given for a trial of the animal at the end of which time the money was to bo paid or the dog returned. Tlie defence was that the dog had been purchased as a retriever, and that defendant on discovery that the animal did not answer the description endeavoured to return it but was unable to find the plaintiff. His Worship save judgment for the defendant. SHAKXEY V. GHEAVES. Claim. £5 damages. This wa" a claim for damages alleged to have been sustained through an attack by defendant's dog, the plaintiff, having already summoned the defendant to the Police Court, under the Dog Nuisance Act. Defendant confessed judgment for 30s, which was acccpted. BEATTMOXT V. TAEICEK. Claim £1 7s 3d, for firewood. The defendant deposed, that he had received the firewood in payment for a quantity of bricks supplied to the plaintiff. Plaintiff took a nonsuit.