RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 4164, 23 June 1875, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, 22nd June. I (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., X.M ) D.-M. Spedding and W. Hepburn v. Francis Crowder (rag merchant). —This was a claim of £1 Ms, proportion of costs of proceedings in the insolvent estate of George Perriinan, produce merchant, Dunediu. The evidence went to show that at a meeting of Perriman's creditors the plaintiffs were appointed with instructions to put i im through the Bankruptcy Court, an offer of 2s Gd in the £ having been refused. Much angry diocussiou took place. Some of the creditors afterwards took a composition of 5s iv the £, and the plaiutitfs, whose instructions were not countermanded, opposed the complete execution of the deed. W. Hepburn declared that he would not then accept 19s in the £. The defendant deposed that he had attended a meeting of the creditors, and was always willing to sign the deed. He never informed the plaintiffs that he had signed the deed accepting oa in the £.—Mr Denniston moved for-a non-suit, contending that there were really no paitioulais of demand, that the plaintiffs had not disbursed money at the defendant's request, and that the i efeudant gave no authority sufficient to make him liable for the costs that had been incurred.— His Worship said that while looking at the whole matter, and willing to lean towards those creditors who were doiDg their duty to themselves and others by pressing proceedings, he did not see his way iv this case to find the defendant liable. The plaintiffs could not blame the Court, but their position was the result of the loose way in which the whole business had been conducted. He had no doubt the defendant was liable for something, but he coul.l not detir.e it, and must give a non suit. —Mr Hay applied that judgment should be without costs, hut His Worship, while admitting the hardship of the case, ciuld not grant the request. He hoped it would be a lesson to mercantile men to be more careful, and one litigauc then re marked that two lawyers had been present at the meetings. Several other similar cases were adjourned till Thursday, Ist July. The Court adjourned till today. PORT CHALMERS. Tuesday, 22ad Jcnr. (Before T. A. Mansford, Esq., R.M.) Drunk.—J. Bxnnin, so charged, was dismissed with a caution, it being his rirst appearance before the Court. . CIVIL. i J. C. WyJie v. A. M'Kenzie.—Claim to [ recover £10, amount of damage sustained bj' plaintiff th-ough the removal of a quantity of stones by defendant. No appearance of either party. Mr Joyce, -who appeared for the defendant, stated that the plaintiff had given notice of his intention to withdraw the summons. He (the counsel), however, would point out that he had been consulted beforehand, and ;;lso that the plaintiff had no power to sue, being only an agent. His Worship, iv consideration of these circumstances, ordered a non suit, with costs. J. King v. G. Pearce.— Claim for £7 15a, for work and labour done. Mr J">yce, for defendant, stated that £G Is had been paid into Court. Defendant asked for more, but upon the. recommendation of the Bench, accepted the amount paid in. J. Pi.llen v. T. Harris.—Claim for £G, value of goods sold and delivered. No appearance of defendant. Judgment by default. J. Mailey i\ A. "Buchanan.—Claim to recover the bum of £7 15-s, for goods supplied and delivered. Mr Joyce, for the plaintiff, stated that the defendant had written and admitted his liability. Plaintiff also admitted a stt off of ISs, f-jr vegetable* supplied. His Worship, however, decided that the set-off could not be entertained, it being a separate claim. As defendant did not appear in the case, and the claim being thoroughly substantiated, judgment went for plaintiff, with costs.