RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume V, Issue 1331, 21 February 1868, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TnunsDAr. (Before Thomas BecMiam, Esq., R M.) Jcd&jiests poii Plaintiffs.—W. J. Cawkwell v. J. M. Peirier, £5 10s, use and occupation, Mr. Hill, junr., for plaintiff; Trustee of Arthur an I Son v. Jas. Kolev, £l, rash lent, Mr. J. B. Hua?ell for plai itiff; J. Heid v. J. Allißon, £1 16s, for goods, Mr. Jov for plaintiff. Defended Cattseb.— Pittau t. Stapfoed.— £2 15s had been p.id into Court, which, with £1 10s was accepted. Mr. Hill, junr., appeared for plaintiff: Mr. Joy fi.r defendant. v. Farroll, £5 59, on a promissory note, Mr. Ilesketh appeared for plaintiff, who produced a promissory note, which, being unstamped", was pronounced to be liable to a penalty of £5 «nd fid. Mr. He.-keth said the terms of the noto were, "I agree to pay, &c," and therefore it might not oomo ■within the terms of the Act. Hie Worship said he thought the t=rms of the last Act were "an agreement to ray money" Mr. Hesketh withdrew the note. Defendant in defence produced a number of receipts amounting to £4, 3 S 6d. After hearing the evidence, His Worship eave iudement for plaintiff £1 17s 6d. h Wood t. Bt/nter awb Co.—Claim £8. Thia was a claim for the value of a heifer allegfad to have been purchased by plaintiff, and left with defendant* to lie fed, and lost through their npglect from ihe insecurity of the paddock fit Otahuhu, in which th cattle were kept. Mr. Heeketb oppeared for plai *

tiff; Mr. J. B. Kuseell for the defendant. Mr. Bussell submitted that tho aotion ebould have been for non-delivery, in terms of contract, and not for cdjistment, inasmuch as the cattle were to be delivered at Otahuhu after payment; that such delivery took place. This Court therefore had no jurisdiction. Aβ it appeared that tho agreement had beeD made in Otahuhu, tho Court decided that it had no jurisdiction. Fbkb v. Brighton.—Claim, £6 7s 6d. Mr. Hesketh for plaintiff. This was a claim for 5s a day for work and labour alleged to havs been performed in defendant's kitchen garden in the Acclimatization Society's grounds, by tho order of defendant, who is Curator to the Society.—Defendant stated in defence that thn plaintiff had come to him and nsked for employment. Ptointiff told him that he was unable to afford him regular employment, on which plaintiiTsaid as defendant had been kind to him he would do a few days' work gratis. Defendant also stated that he had paid him small sums from time to timo. He also called a witness who corroborated hie evidence, stttting that ho could have himeelf performed the work in three days. Defendant, however, did not deny" that tho work had been performed, and his Woisbip said there was no alternative but to give judgment for plaintiff fer £2 7s 6d, disallowing the portion of the claim for cleaning a house, &c. This concluded the businese.