RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 4685, 22 February 1877, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wednesday, February 21st. (Before T. A. Mansford, Esq., E.M.) City Corporation v. T. Hamcnn. —This case, whiuh was heard a few days ago, was a claim for the recovery ot L 33 10s for gas supplied at St. George's Hall. His Worship gave judg merit for L 26 12s, with costs. Gilmonr v. Guthrie and Larr.auh.—This case was also heard on a former day. His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for the sum of L 4 0s lid, which was the amount paid into Court. Matbew Dixon v. H. Houghton and Co.- — Claim of L 7 17s. His Worship now gave judgment for the defendants. Henry Beck v. Joseph Patten. —Claim of LI 7s 6d. Mr Howorth for plaintiff, for whom judgment was given, with coste. (foliar v. Jeffreys. —This was a fraud summons. The defendant was ordered to pay the amount by instalments. Viekers v. Fox.—Claim of L 3 13s 9d, due on a fraud summons. The defendant was ordered to pay the amount by weekly instalments of 5s each. John Colehan v. John Corcoran.—Claim of L 4 3s, bals.il co due for oats. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs. W. D. Sutherland v. W. G. Kempton.— Claim of L 3 14s. Judgment for amount, with costs. Same v. Margaret Rollo.—Claim L 4 19s 7d. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs. Same v. Henry Galland. • Claim of L 3 10s 8d Judgment for plaintiff, with costs. I T. Hayes v. Say well.—Claim of L 3 KM, | Judgment for plaintiff, -with coats,

Chnrle? Cooper v. James Sharp.—Claim of 14.1 Judgment for plaintiff, with costs. Gr. X Turton v. "W. S. Burton.—Claim of L 43 14a 3d, the amount of a bill of costs. Mr Kettle for plaintiff, and Mr Stout for the defer dant, who had been arrested on the previous day and held to bail, aa he was aboul to leave the Colony.—The plaintiff now deposed that the defendant had promised to pay the account sued for. A memo, signed by the defendant was also produced in which he consented to the Magistrate adjudicating upon the matter.—Mr Slout contended that as the bill of costs had not been delivered one njonth, no action could be brought without first having obtained the permission of a Judge of the Supreme Court to proceed. — His Worship held the objection fatal, and the case ended by Mr Kettle consenting to accept a non suit. John Mouat v. Thomas Carter. —Claim of L 5, for money had and received by plaintiff in defendant's use. Mr Stout for plaintiff, and Mr Nation for the defence.—The plaintiff, who is a labourer, deposed that about the beginning of the New Year he went into the defendant's store in Walker street, having seven sovereigns in his possession, which he had previously drawn from the Dunedm Savings Bank. He changed two sovereigns for drink and for the purpose of paying eighteenpence to his landlady, who happened to come in at the time. When he left the store he was insensible and drunk, and had no money in his possession.— Alexander Wiley knew plaintiff and defendant. He saw Mouat at Carter's shop somewhere about the beginning of tho New Year. He had no drink with Mouat, nor did he see any liquor on the counter that morningl. He received a glass from Mr Carter, but ho did not know who paid for it. Mouat did not. — To Mr Nation: He heard Mouat s>ay that he came to pay Carter 4s, which he owed him from the day previously, and saw bJm hand over a sovereign, and receive the change back. When witness was leaving the shop, Mouat told him that he thought he had paid away some sovereigns down town, instead of shillings. Plaintiff subseqsently told witnes.? that he found that be had more money than he thought he had.—The defendant, examined for plaintiff— Knew the plaintiff, and remembered him being in his store on several occasions. Plaintiff was

in the horrors most of the time. Witness did not receive the money from the plaintiff, nor did the latter pay for a drink for Wiley on the day referred to. He gave plaintiff two drinks when he was in the horrors, to save his life. He never saw the plaintiff with more than two sovereigns. Thos. Henry was also called, but he did not answer. Service of summons was proved, and Mr Stout asked that a warrant should be issued to bring Henry before the Court, to show_ cause why he should not be fined, and that in the meantime the case should be adjourned.—Mr Nation objected to the adjournment. —His Worship said that he did not see what he could do in the matter. In the meantime it was agreed to proceed with the case for the defence, and Mrs Carter was called, and deposed that she did not see plaintiff pay the defendant any money.—The case was adjourned until Wednesday next. John Brooks v. R. Wilson and Co.—Claim of LlB for commission.—The defendants paid L 6 10s into Court, and pleaded not indebted as | to the remainder. Judgment for the amount paid into the Court, with costs. A. Cowgiri v. Wheatley.—Claim of L 2. The plaintiff was employed to do certain work for the defendant at JEakanui. Having com pleted it, and returned to Dunedin, he wrote to the defendant, asking him, as the job was but a short one, to refund him his coach hire. His request haying been refused, be brongnt the present action to enforce his claim. Mr I'urton for plaintiff, Mr Stout for defendant. Judgment for defendant. J. S. Webb v. James Campbell.—Claim of L7O 3s, losses sustained in consequence of the defendant having refused to complete the purchase of certain sections situated in Hillside Township. Mr Howorth for plaintiff, and Mr Lewis for the defendant. —The case wa3 nDt concluded when the Court adjourned.