RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XI, Issue 3987, 22 August 1874, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday. [Before Thomas Beckham, Ks.-]., K M.J Judgment foi: Plaintiffs.—Dingwall v. Oixon, £7 4s Oil, to be paid at L's lid a week ; Loggio v. Ireland, £0 13s lOrt ; White v. Miller, £20 ; Moore v. Regan, £S 5s 2d. Adjourned.—Koth v. Aldridge, £6 Ss tjd ; McLanghlin v. Dawson, £14 ISs. Withdrawn".—Davis v. Maddox, claim, £3 15s Gd. Jamiimon- v. Haywood.—Claim, £6 10s. Mr. Joy for the plaintiff, Mr. J. ii. Russell for the defendant. The plaintiff is an undertaker, residing in Wellesley-street, aud the defendant is ail undertaker, residing in Wyndharn-street. From the plaintiff's evidence it appeared that on the 12th of July last, the defendant called upon ln'm and asked him if he was going on with, the job of burying Mr. iilackwell, mate of the l'et. Witness said no, that he had nothing to do with it, that Mr. Binney had countermanded, the order, and of course would have no niore concern with it. The defendant then asked plaintiff to do the job for him, alleging as a reason that the plaintiff had plenty of stuff on his premises, whereas the defendant had not the necessary material. The defendant promised to pay for the job. A coffin, conveyance, and other grave charges were provided by the plaintiti', and to recover this amount he brought his action. The plaintiff's son corroborated the above testimony in all the essential particulars. Defendant was to have a bonus of 30s for giving plaintiff the job. The defendant, however, gave a different version of the story. His Worship thought the fact that the defendant was to liave a bonus of 30s from the plaintiff fi>r bringing the job took from the defendant thy responsibility of paying for it. Judgment for defendant. Davis v. Maddox.—Claim, £3 15s Oil. Mr. Joy for the plaintiff, Mr. -). B. Russell for the "defendant. In this case the defendant, who is pound-keeper at Dedwood, had kept in x'ound the pLiiiitilFs cows. The plaintiff's wife went for the cows, but the defendant, instead of demanding 2s Gd per head as pound charges, insisted upon receiving £3 15s (id, being the amount of alleged damage they had doue. The plaintiff paid the money under protest. The action ■« as brought for money had and received, namely, the amount between the authorised charge and the sum paid. The fact of receiving the money having Ijt-.n proved, Mr. J. B. Russell contended th.it the action iwuld not bo brought in this form ; that the plaintiff should replevin and an interpleader summons issue. Mr. Joy said he would be able to shew that the defendant's was not the nearest pound ; tuat the land trespassed upon was not enclosed by a legal fence; that a pound-keeper as such had no right to make a charge for damage. His Worship thought the plaintiff could not recover under that form of action. The case was withdrawn.