RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 4267, 21 October 1875, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Weoxksday, 20th October. ] (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., li.M.) : Oliver and Ulph v. Leesk.—This was a claim j of L44 Is M on a dishonoured acceptance, with j interest thereon. Judgment was given for L 44 , 0s sd, with costs. m '< Matheson Bros. v. Haldane.— Claim of L 9<3 < 10s Od. Judgment was given for the amount, with costs. ' ' Grange v. Chain.—This was a fraud sum- ! mons to recover L 36 for provisions supplied. , Mr Han-is a]>peared for the plaintiff, and Mr Lewis for defendant. His Worship said it was always with some degree of reluctance^ that he was inclined to press a case of this kind, but, of course, every case depended upon its own circumstiinces. He very strongly expressed his disapprobation of defendant's conduct. Plaintiff had supplied provisions to his family on the strength that he would pay when he got an expected remittance from home._ He got that remittance and did not pay a shilling, but told a cock-and bull story in Court of having lost it somewhere. It \v«s a case he was bound to make an example of, and if the money was not paid in a week he would be obliged to pronounce an orderNation v. M'Grath. — Claim of L 45 10s. Judgment by confession, with costs. Doodeward v. D. Murray-—Claim of L 2 2s. Gd for a clock. Judgment by default, with costs. ~ Horace Bastings (trustee in the estate or Roderick M'Leod) v. Richard Howorth, storekeeper.—This was a claim of L2l ss, on a. dishonoured promissory note. Judgment by default. C. Cooiier v. A. Hawley.— This was a summons for ejectment, to recover possession of a house in Walker street. Order granted; to take effect in 24 hoursHenry Thomas (chemist) v. J. R. Crawford (surgeon).—Claim of Lls, on a dishonoured promissory note, and 8s 6d interest thereon. Defendant pleaded not indebted. Mr Aldridge, counsel for plaintiff, submitted this was no answer. Defendant must either prove that this was not his signature, that the bill had been paid, or that it had been, given for an improper consideration. —Defendant alleged that he had a claim ag linst plaintiff, and that it was a partnership concern. —His Worship would not allow him to go into another transaction. The presumption in law was against him, bee wise no man put his hand to a promissory note unless he owed the money. Judgment was given for plaintiff, with costs. E. Thomson v. S. Mawhinny.— L 3 7s, for furnishings supplied. Mr E. Cook for defendant. Plaintiff was non-suited. Barker and Nixon v. Weym ess.—Claim of L27 Bs, for board and lodging LlO was paid on account. Mr Sinclair (on behalf of Messrs Smith and Anderson) appeared for plaintiffs. Judgment for Ll7 10s, with costs. T. Pitzsimmonds v. Craig and White.—This was a claim of Ll9 ss, balance of account, for wages due at the rate-of L 3 per week. MiLewis appeared for the plaintiff. Defendants said he was working as a lithographic printer, and did not agree upon a fixed rate of wages. Counsel for defendants asked His Worship if he considered there was a case to be gone on with. His Worship replied that on the principle of quondam mcruit there was a very decided case. After evidence for the defence, judgment was given for LlO and costs. Reid and Grajr v. Lindsay.—Claim of Lls, for goods sold and delivered. Judgment for plaintiffs, with costs. Mr Denniston for plaintiffs. The Court then adjourned.