LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9149, 3 September 1888, Page 5

LAW AND POLICE.

R.M. COURT.— Satttrday, [Before Dr. Giles, R.M.] Jakixs v. Moir.—This case had been heard on Thursday. It was a claim in respect to the purchase of a shipment of sacks, which the defendant refused to receive on the ground that they were not as per sample. Mr, Campbell appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Theo. Cooper for the defence. His Worship now delivered judgment for defendant, with costs. Mr. Cooper asked for extra costs for witnesses examined in Christchurch, but Mr. Campbell opposed the application for costs for professional assistance. His Worship said he would allow the witnesses' costs, but not professional costs. Mr. Campbell here applied for a nonsuit, but His Worship said it was too late now, as he had already given his judgment. The costs amounted to £8 4s. Rkeves v. Burnett.This was a claim for £3 Is 6d, amount of a butcher's bill. Mr. Humphreys appeared for the plaintiff, who proved that the amount was due. Mr. Johnston, who appeared for the defendant, cross-examined the witness with a view of showing that he had rendered other accounts. He admitted receiving £2 since the date on which the account was commenced, but that squared up to a certain date. He had been a tenant of defendant up to about Christmas, 1886, but it was the practice to allow the rent to go in payment of the account. The rent was paid every week, and the amount of the account was deducted from it. The accounts were somewhat complicated, there being a lengthy running account between the parties, and the accounts submitted were in a hopeless muddle, which plaintiff was unable to explain. Mr. Humphreys accepted a nonsuit with costs. John King and F. Newell v. W. R. Wills. —Mr. Campbell appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Buckland for the defendant. Mr. Buckland took exception to the indefinite nature of the summons, no dates being given. His Worship allowed plaintiff to amend by inserting the words February, 1888. The claim was on an account stated for £2 ss, for which an lOU. was given and Mr. Buckland took exception to it as insufficiently stamped. His Worship upheld the objection, and the plaintiff then deposed that in February, 1888, an account wis stated between his firm and the defendant, showing that £2 5s was due to plaintiff. In cross-examination, the witness, Mr. King, said that there was another anount due to them by the defendant at the time. Mr. Buckland contended that under these circumstances there was no account stated, for it was not the whole amount of the debt. Witness stated that there was a promissory note for £11 odd running between them, and a portion of the £2 58 was for interest. Mr. Campbell said that if his client chose to bring his action for £2 ss, a less amount than was due, that was their look out, and if they brought another action his friend could then take objection as to splitting a demand. His Worship held that there was a case to answer. The defendant dej>osed that he had a number of transactions with the plaintiff. He gave a promissory note some time before February, but it was only given as a voucher, not for money received in connection with election expenses. When he signed the lOU for £2 5s he did not think it was an lOU, but a voucher to enable Mr. King to claim interest from the committee. Witness denied owing Mr. King anything. The money was given for election purposes, not borrowed, and although he signed the promissory note he did nob owe the money. Mr. Campbell accepted a nonsuit, with costs £1 Is. Durston v. Ross.—This was a claim for a day's wages, and a week's wages, in lieu of notice. Dr. McArthur appeared for the defendant. The plaintiff, a horse trainer and jockey, had been in the employ of the defendant to ride out two colts for him, and he was to get 15s a week. He claimed payment at that rate for eight days' wages. The defence was that plaintiff was discharged for negligence, and that he was not entitled to notice. Judgment was given for 2s Id (one day's wages), and costs.