RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 2489, 27 January 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wednesday, 26 th. Jaotakt. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Ziele v. M'NiehoL—Claim of L 97 19s sd, for goods supplied. Judgment by default; for plaintiff for amount claimed, with costs. Johnson v. Wallace-—The Magistrate considered that the 10 U was not payable until 12 months after date, and therefore nonsuited the plaintiff. Harris, Macassey, and Turfcon v. Reieharfe. —Claim of L3L log 7d, for professional services rendered. Judgment by; default for plaintiffs for amount claimed, with, costs. Turton v. fceicharfc.—Claim of L 34 3s Sd, for professional services rendered. Mr Wilson, who appeared for defendant, admitted that the services had been rendered, and the plaintiff said he had received various sums in payment, after deducting which the Magistrate gave judgment ior plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs. Tooker v. M'Glashan and Gray.—Claim of L 43 15s, loss sustained in consequence of defendants not fulfilling an, agreement. Mr, Wilson appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Haggitb for defendants. The plaintiff said lie had been engaged to convey a portion of the material of the Nuggets; lighthouse to the site on which it had'been I erected, en condition that he should get a return cargo from Catlis's Biyer withoa| d?- ---: ky, instead of which he had been' detaineci | for five weeks The defence was that the ! agreement was made with anoi&er person, and the plaintiff admitted that his agreement; was signed at the foot of that i person's charter party. Mr Haggitt con r tended that the defendant was not bound by | agreement to go to Catlin's River; he j merely went there for hi 3 own benefit.. John Gray, one of the defendants, had agreed with the captain of another vessel for the conveyance of the whole of 'the.-materials, - and after his vessel had been loadedi he introduced plaintiff to him as a party who would convey the balance of the materials at the same term 3, to which condition they, agreed. He had been asked by plaintiff for a return cargo, and replied that he .would do all he could to get him one. He did get him a cargo; but distinctly swore he had never agreed to get him one. The case was ad- j journed till Monday, to allow of the production of further evidence, and that the Magistrate might consider some of the points raised. Symms v. Sutcliffe.—Adjourned till Monday. Gathrie and Asher v. Wilkie.—Claim of L 24 14s, for timber supplied. Mr Harris appeared for plaintiffs. Judgment by default for amount claimed, with costs. Forrester v. Bianie.—Claim of L6B sa, for 39 weeks' board and lodging. The plaintiff said he had not not been supplied with the particulars of demand. ( Mr tiarrij, who appeared for the plaiatiff, contradicted this, and said he had spoken several times to him, and he had always, admitted the debt, and had promised to pay it when he had received remittances from home, and though he had received them, he had. not paid the debt. Miss Forrester said she had heard him repeatedly promise her mother that he would pay the debt, and when he had received his remittances, He excused himself by saying that the money had been arrested to meet a dishonoured bkh The defendant at fi st swore he had. received only LSO from home, but afterwards admit ci having received other sums. Tho Magistrate lectured him saverely, telling him he had been guilty of shameless equivocation, and gave judgment for plaiatiff, L 49 10s, with costß. , ■/; Andrew v. John James Gow.—Claim of L 37 Is, for fenciug and interest. Mr Harris appeared for plaiatiff, and Mr Howorth for defendant, who admitted part of the items, but pleaded payment. It appeared that a cheque for pirb payment of the sum claimed had been sent to Mr Harris, bnt had not } been r ceived by him, not had it been pre- [ sented at the Bank. Mr Harris said if he had received the cheque, he should have withdrawn the case, but under that circum* ! j stance he preferred to proceed, David

Andrew said he had agreed -wiib defendaafi to put np a dividing fence, for v?hici defendant was to pay one-half, and that the fence was eree'ed on the surveyor's line, anil. also marked out by defendant, with whom, he had jointly agreed as to details. After the fence had been erected the defendant: laid down a crop in the paddock, whicb ifc partly helped to enclose. He had applied for payment, but defendant said his purse was "too long in the neck." A Bout thirteen weeks ago, nearly four years after the feac?. had been put np, defendant objected to the fence aa being off the proper line. D. Grant, surveyor, said the fence encroached on defendant's land. The defendant said he had told plaintiff that if he erected the feoce on the right line he would pay his share. Fe had not put in poles to mark the line of fence. He had said be would pay for the fence when its- accuracy was proveC He cauld not have raised a crop if the fence had not been erected, nor could he have confined his sheep. The Magistrate.considered, hat it had been put up with the concurrfcßce and request of the defendant, who had as^ much to do as the plaintiff :^)thit3 ereeSioHt on that particular lin&; The^j)laintiff waifei therefore entitled to recovery^ but Me s^rfor interest could not ba allowed. After discussion between the counsel,' the Magisstrate reserved judgment till steps had beent. taken for the recovery of the cheque.