RESIDENT MAGISTRAT'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 4741, 28 April 1877, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRAT'S COURT.

Wednesday, .25th" April. "" (Before T. A. Mansford, Esq., EiM.) Edward Pritchard v. David HilL—This was a judgment summons for L 42 9s 9d. Mr Stout appeared for ..the plaintiff, and Mr E.\Cook for tae.defendant, who offered to pay the amount hi instalments of 10s per week.—His Worship ordered the defendant to pay L 4 per month: in, default, three months' imprisonment. l "--■■ Alexaader Thurlotv. George Smart.—Thia was a judgment summons for L 2 10s. The defendant was ordered to pay the amount this day fortnight | in . default, one month's imprisonment. . ■ , . - ~, : ..James Bkckv. Alfred MeUer.— Judgment summons for 1,7 2s Id. The defendant was ordered to pay 10s per,week) in default,' six* Weeks'imprisonment,' ■■■:.■',-'"'■ ■ • -<■ ' William H. Henny v.. Oharies-Hickiina—: This, wa^&n application for an order of eject•': ment.- The defendant was ordered to give up possession of the plaintiff's premises ou the 9th May". ■ — ■■•••■ :\ ■■••• ■■"■•; ■•■■■!•■• -■■:) • :■-..■.■ .:•■..■; James Duff v. Edward Joyce.--^Glaini of L 2 10s lOdi goodo supplied. The defendant's -wife V}t-&te& that he was iU, and could- not attend" the Court, and that; some of the goods mentioned in ; tho particulars had never been-re-ceived by the family. .His Worship gave judg ment for the plaintiff, with costs. ■? Catherine Marshall v. John. Mackenzie.Claim of L 25, balance of contract, price for a stack of oats. . Mr M'Keay appeared .for. the plaintiff, and Mr A. Bathgate for fcue defend* ant. Judgment waa reserved fOr:a:week. William Fentcn v. Sinclair M'Beth.—Claim of-iilO;'damages-for-alleged breach (if agreement, whereby the defendant agreed to employ the plaintiff as groom and: to make himself generally useful for six: months.' Mr M'Keay appeared for the'plaintiff.:-Mr E. Hay for the defendant, pleaded that the Court had no juradictionin.this case, as the alleged breach of agreement occurred, at Beaumont. Mr M Keay replied that the contract was made in the city. His Worship ruled that he had no jurisdiction.—Mr Hay: In that case we cannot get costs.—Mr M'Keay: Then you don't deserve it.—(Laughter.) Halliwell and.Duguid-v. Guthrie and Larnach.—Claim of LU 9s, quantity of lignite alleged to have been supplied to the defendants. * & BBath, ath Satc appeared for the plaintiffs, and_Mr Stout for the defendants, who' pleaded tnat they neither ordered nor received the coal. The evidence showed that the coal had been supplied to one John M'Connack, who had Lad a contract with the defendants, and against whom judgment had been given for the coal';in question. Hia Worship promised to look into the authorities* cited by the learned counsel, and judgment was reserved till Wed neaday next. ~ ,- . .-:,:■■,:■. ■;■■-.■' .:. rC, E. Bird v. Thomas JEeffernan.—Claim of IS 10s, damages sustained in: consequence of the defendant's cattle having trespassed on the plaintiff's laud, at Fern HilL Mr Howorth appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Stout for the defendant. After hearing'the evidence, as Worship assessed: the damage's at 20s, for which judgment waa given, together with professional costs. •■' ■ • ■■■■■'■■■ L

fe Charles E. Bird y. Alexander Campbell.— This was a similar claim to the foregoing. Mr Howorth appeared for'the plaintiff,-and Mr A. Bathgate for the defendant. The case was settled by the defendant paying 103 6d and COStS.- - ;■■- ■•' - .-:■■ ■• . ' '': ■ •'■ '

The Court rose at 4 p.m. TnunsDAT, 26th Apbh. ; (Before John Bathgate:, Esq.,:E.M.)

and Gow y. E; M'Donald.—Claim orL9,_fcr goods supplied. Mr Duncan for the plaintiffs. Judgment for the plaintiffs, with costs.

Esther and Low y. George Tunnell.~O!aim of LA 2a 6d. Judgment for plaintiifs, with costs. ' .

John M Donald v. Edward Heenan.—Claim of LSG, damages alleged to have been sustained by the,plaintiff, who is a fanner at Maungatua in consequence of a bull/ the property of the defendant, having trespassed on plaintiff's land Mr Stout for plaintiff, and Mr Harris for the defence. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for L2los, together with costs. W. D. Sutherland v. Montagu.—Claim of 21s, for goods supplied. Judgment for plaintiff for 3s Bd, with costs. .'■■-.,.■ IL. Sharps v. A. Burfc,—Claim of L2O, damages sustained by plaintiff in consequence of having been bitten by a dog, the property of the detendaut. The casa had been paitly heard on a previous day, and adjourned for the purpose of obtaining the evidence of Mrs Burt. She was now in attendance, and deposed that sheneyer knew that the dog had bitten tho pTaintiff until he sent in a notice asking for compensation. The dbg had been in the habit et playing with children, and she had never told anyone that the dog was a vicjoua one. The dog was only five months old tit the time defendant stated-that it -had-bitten ;him; "His. Worship reserved judgment', , . , , ' Wi' Egcrs. v. ; James. Wright, -rClaim. of, L 3 Ha, for goods : supplied. '[ Judgment for,plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs. '■.;■ -', I ■ --=■ P. «JV Cox v, P. Mangeh.—Claim of X/LOO, «amageg emi&ln&i by the plaintiff jn conse-

quence ,of the carelessness .of- the defendant's servant in having driven his waggon against the plaintiff's buggy, whereby the;plaintiS and his horse and bugey were injured.^ Mr Stout for the plaintiff, and Mr Macassey for the defence. The plaintiff deposed that,-on March the 25th, he was driving a one-horse buggy to Falmerstoo, and when beyoud -the KUmog Hotel, he met a waggon coming towards him. He called out two or three times, and then pullea up his buggy on the. right hand side of the road. s?he waggon came right upon him,, and the fore-wheels of it struck the fore-wheels of the buggy, which was smashed. ; The Horses broke away, , and plaintiff and. a "man1; named M'Lellan, who was with him at the time, were thrown out. . When plaintiff got up, he foUowed the waggon, in ■order to: ascertain -who ;the oivner of it was.- The plaintiff then gave; de-: tailed evidence isa- to /vie amount-of damage which he sustained. After further evidence had been taken, the case was adjourned.,' '.

-. ■■■_' FBibi.TJ Apbil 27th. (Befpre John Bathgate, Esq.; K.M.)

.Sharp y. Birt.—Claim of L2O, damages sua-, tamed'by the plaiutiff in consequence of his having been bitten by defendant's dog. The case was heard on a' former occasion, and His Worship,: in giving judgment, said that'the first question to be determined was: Was there any proof: of ttienter?- Now, in the face of the evidence led,.he wag bound to come to the conclusion that" there was not, :- The only,, proof offered on that point wis the -evidence of the plaintiff,: who stated that Mrs!Birt.told him tnat the dog! wts [ .vicibuF. ■■'■ Mrs Birt positively denied that. . Then they had the fact that the ;dog was only seven or eight-months old.;: -In the face of-that'fact/-and I;he-further one: of it: being a matter of bath against path, he could not see that there was any. proof of scienter,The whole law applicable to the matter was discussed, in the case of Best v.' Larnach, tried in the District Court in: 1874."- It was then held ;that. the Act passed by. the General Assembly is .1875,; being later than the Provincial Council Ordinance of;. 1862, was'lawi In that case, "the; plaintiff was. non-suited,'with costs, and a similar couree would be pursued in this instance.—MrTiewia asked leave to appeal, on the ground that the" Act of the Assembly did not repeal the .Ordinance. of .1862,. which .dispensed with the necessity of proving scienter.—Mr JDenniston remarked that, it was. ultra vires' -for the" Provincial Council1 to :pass such an Act over-ridding the Common Lawr The Council might as" well have'repealed the Statute of Frauds.—His Worship said that as; the question .was an important one, he would! grant, leave;to appeal ' ■ : ' • ' ■ ir. Allan King's Creditors' Trustee v. Alex* ander Callendeht-Claini of : Ll3a 9d, for goocts; BUOTlied--Mr Stout for plaintiff.—Adjourned,' Estherand Lawv,-;Ai Congleton.—Claim of Lll 5s ld,: goods supplied.—Mr^Dunctin for plamtiffa, and-Mr .Dennistpn for the defence.-r^Plamtiffsnon-suited- '■'■'■ : '■''■'■'■'■:: >

Esther: and : Loyf;.v. M. Sheehan.—Claim of L61957d.-T-Mr Duncan for the plaintiffs; and Mr Denmstoiifor" thedefences-Judgment for plaintiffs, with; L 5, together with costs. Z:[.' r John M'Kay; V. ■ Wedderspobni—Claim of Lls, for 30 days' work done, at the rate of IQ3 per.day.—Mr Hay for the plaintiff; and Hr E.G. Strode for the defence.—The .^plaintifE de-' Jgosed that ;there. was no -specific agreement-as to wages, but he usually "received lls and 12s a: day;—The-case .for .tne.defence was that it was a partnership job, and. itfcould not be told whether the undertaking would result in a profit or a loss.- The contract hid:proved a losing one, and "the plaintiff wished to get wages out of it.—His Worship gave' judgment for i the plaintiff for LlO, and costs. " "" ■ W. L. Adao.B v. The Corporation of r-Dun-edin.—Claim'of Ll2, for work and labour done.—Mr Allan for the plaintiff, and^Mr Sinclair for the defence. '■ The; plaintiff: sent in a'claim' for all demands up to March 3*d, and wa3 paid in full. 3ELe continued.in the service of'ttieT Corporation as Clerk till March 20ih.vr His services were dispensed with'ai three'quarters of an 'hour'a notice, and he was iofferedonly xj2 17s 6d < as satisfaction.—The defence was that plaintiff- had been-oyerpaid on a former occasion.—His Worship' held that the former account could not.be opened up' inthe present form, and gave judgment for the plamtiff/with COStS. - -■ .;. '•. . . . .. . ,

Allan King's. Creditors' Trustee :y. Peter : Leach.— Claim: of -LLL 12s.—Mr Stout for the ! plaintiff,-and Mr Mouat for the' defence.—His 1 Worship gave judgment for. L 3 18s,.including :L36s 8d paid into Gour'£.i -•■ ~- '■■ - --Same r.'M'Nee': "and M'Knight/r-Claim of LI 10s2d.ir-Mx Stout for plaintiff.-^Jtidgment; for-plainiiff, with costs. .; . ,= :'. '■ ' : The Court adjourned till "Wednesday morning. •-■ '.. ■ ••.:.-.• ■ ;....;• .- ;..:. :: : •', ;•.. . : ;