RESIDENT MAGISIRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume X, Issue 3695, 13 September 1873, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISIRATE'S COURT.

Ebidat. [Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., R.M.] The usual sitting, for determining small debt claimß, was held to-day, and the following business disposed of: — Undefended.—Judgment for Plaintiffs: Wilson v. Fraser, £3 ; Madden v. Smith, £3 ; McKenzie v. Nicholson, 15s 9d (Mr. Laishley for plaintiffs) ; Duder v. Philips, £9 12s Id ; Doyle v. Andrews, £1 10s lOd. Dejended.—Farrow v. Edwards : Claim £2 2s. This was a claim for boat hire, made upon the following deposition as to facts : The plaintiff, a waterman, was engaged in September last to take a shooting party to the island of Motutapu, the defendant being one of the party. The fact of the defendant having accompanied the party in the boat was not denied. The defence, however, was that the defendant did not engage the boat, nor was it engaged by his authority. He said 'he was only a guest. The plaintiff deposed positively that the boat was engaged by the defendant, but in cross-examination, it appeared there were two occasions upon which his boat was hired, and it was suggested that he had confounded one occasion with the other. The defendant called a witness named Howe, who deposed to the best of his belief, and adhered to the statement through a severe crossexamination, that it was he who engaged the boat on the day in question. He was at that time servant to Captain Howett, who is since deceased ; that he received orders from his master to* engage the boat to go to Motutapu. Mr. Edwards was one of the patry. The party had obtained le&ve from the owners of the island to Bhoot a buck. His Worship thought the evidence too conflicting to decide the matter off hand, and reserved his judgment till next Court-day. Mebeick anb another v. Cbaig.—Claim £13 15s. Thiß caße was settled by tho learned counsel engaged by plaintiff paying into Court £12 14s 6d. Kibbx T. McShake.—Claim £9 14s 6d. Mr. J. B. Russell for plaintiff; Mr. Joy for defendant. This was an aotion for money payable. The plaintiff is lessee of the toll-bar ut tho Mount Eden Road, and the defendant is a carter. The defendant had some carting to do for the Harbour Board and the Parnell Board, and his drays used to pass through the "bar" witnout paying. Payments for toll and " royalty" used to be made at the end of the month. It appeared that what was called " royalty " was let at the same time as tho tolls, and amounted to sixpence for every cartload taken out of scoria ash pits or quarries at Mount Eden. McShane did not make the last payment, and a person named McDonald, who held one of the contracts, was mentioned as liable. The case was surrounded with legal technicalities of some nicety. In the first place that there could be no lease without a deed in writing; that the conditions upon which the gravel pits and the tolls were let at auction involved a difficulty in the present osße, and could only be proved by the terms of the announcement in the Gazette. Further, that vtpon the question of what was called " royalty" there was a good deal to perplex the judgment. Further, it was contended that proof of the erection of the particular toll bar, and the reception of tolls being authorised was necessary. After a protracted argument by the learned counsel, tho plaintiff was nonsuited.