RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 550, 22 September 1863, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

. . Monday, September 21st. • (Be rore A. ChethanvStibde E*q...R.M;) Drfnkensess.— William: Boss! and William Kirk were fined 20s and' oostsi; in;'default; of payment, to be imprisoned 48 houK.vWm. M'Gtee was discharged witha caution.' s . . . " ■ '

I Ejectment.—Henry Fazikerly v. Archibald Dick This case was again called on; Ov Hardy-stated that two of the defendant's children were- suffering from, fever," and that it would bedangerous to remove tLeni. He believed they could be removei in a week. In reply to the Magistrate, the^defehdaht said he should only be too glad to get out of the house, for be was paying two rints at the present time.-; The case was further adjourned for ;a week. : ■•.-■;.,. ■■;.'. '.•; :;i'; '■-:'■:-- ■•'' - v •"■>.'CIVIL, CASES.'';.-■■/.. - : ::. : '- . .'.;■ :.'.. Moran v. Warren^—Mr Barton appeared for the defendant. The claim was for eight guineas, for. four days' work as survejor, in running lines to enable the defendant to clear some surveyed groundbeyond Blueskiu Bay, so as to fence. The defence was that the work was worse than useless, inasmuch as not only had the defendant, paid the wages of two laborers and worked himself, but the bush cut had now been thrown on places whence it would have to be removed. It was said that the "plaintift commenced two or three times, but never could' hit the Government pegs. As a matter of law, the plaintiff was not entitled to anything4,-but as a matter of favor, the defendant had been, and was, willing to pay him four guineas. The case was dismissed. . ■

John Fargie (Trustee of Margaret Paterson) v John Schlesinger.-~Mr Wilson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Ward forgtbe defendant. The question was as to the right to claim rent, which was to be paid in advance,l and it turned upon the ''Construction of a written agreement, which the defendant said' did not contain the terms agreed upon verbally. Judgment for the amount claimed:' LlO and costs.

F. Borthwick v. George Balfour.—Mr Wilson was for the plaintiff, who claimed 18 15s for five weeks' board, and a, coat supplied to the defendant's father, and which it was said the defendant had promised to pay. Liability was denied, except as to LI 10s for. the coat, for wbichMi2.los was claimed. The promise to pay for the board was alleged to have been given at the end of the first week of the five. The Magistrate thought that judgment must be for tiie defendant, but he adjourned the case to Wednesday, to allow Mr Wilson to cite cases to show that the defendant was liable. ■'"'■.■ '.":

Robert Gray v. W. Strahah.—Judgment by consent for L 5 os due on an I 0 U, the amount and costs to be paid by instalments of 103 a week, and to be taken to the residence of the plaintiff, who objected to be again ''tackled by half-a-dozen Irishmen," as he said he was when he went to serve the summon?.

Mary Garrottyv. James Gibson.—This case was adjourned to Wednesday ; it was a dispute as to an agreement of the plaintiff as servant, the defendant undertaking to show that she had expressed her satisfaction with the amount lhat ha 1 been paid, and said.that she would not "go to law" a3 to her dismis'al. '■'"'• ;

James M Guire v. Henry Hooper.—Mr Barton appeared for the plaintiff, who keeps the Imperial Hotel; and Mr flaggitt for the defendant, of the Taieri Ferry. The case was a dispute as to the reasonableness of the charges made for the accommodation of the defendant, his wife, and children.

After the evidence of the plaintiff, Mr Barton closed his case, and Mr Hasgitt applied for a non-suit on the groundthatthe plaintiffhad notproved a single item ofthebill. The Magistratesai>i he did Dot for a moment doubtthat. the defendant stopped at the Imperial; but a specific defence had been raised, and he (the Magistrate) was obliged to hold that the plaintiff had not, in fact, proved anything legally, except that he knew nothing about the case. Mr Barton asked for leave to call the defendant. Mr Haggitt objected; for the defendant had absolutely tendered L 9 Is, which he considered exorbitant, but which he was willing to pay, rather than be dragged into Court. He (Mr Hagsitt) would consent to go into the case on its simple merits, if the defendant would waive all costs in the case. Mr Barton declined to waive anything. The Magistrate thought the offer of the defendant was a fair and- reasonable one. Mr Barton must decline to yield. The Magistrate must grant the non-suit. Mr Barton asked leave to state a case for the Supreme Court; and the Magistrate said he would'grant every assistance. Mr Haggitt applied for costs, which the Magistrate said he should decidedly refuse^A non-suit was ordered. •

Judgment by default was given in the following cases :r—George Little y. James Ainsley, L 5 lOs 3d for meat supplied at East Taieri; James C. Lorimer v. Geo. (Jibson, L 9 6s 3.1, balance due for horse feed, sold at Green Island; John Hodge v. W. Robertson, 17s for a fortnight's rent of a house in Russell-street; Alfred Mitchell v. Ellen Day, Li 10s " for washing and dres-ing linen, done byniy wife;' 1 Thomas v. Dixon, Ll2 los, on a bill of exchange.