MAGISTERIAL.

Patea Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 962, 22 November 1882, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

PATEA—YESTERDAY. (Before 0. A. Wray, Esq, R.M.) CIVIL CASES. Barker v. Hurley. —Mr Barton for plaintiff ; defendant conducted his own case. This case which had been adjourned from the week before last, now came on for hearing. After a few details, uninteresting to the public at large, had been gone into, judgment was given for plaintiff for £l4 3s 2d with £3 7s costs. Gower v. Anderson.— Claim £3 6s lid goods supplied. Mr Hainerton for plaintiff. The plaintiff sfated that defendant had received the goods on which the present claim was based through Mr Colson, who managed his (plaintiff’s) business.

W. Colson stated that in 1880 Anderson came to his (witness’) shop and offered to buy some pigs. Witness sold him four young ones at 10s each, the arrangement being that defendant was to keep the sow until the young ones were weaned. On the 251h December 1880, witness received from defendant some potatoes and green vegetables in part settlement of the meat account. The value of the vegetables was, to the best of witness’ belief, about 10s.

David Anderson, the defendant, said he had paid part of the money owing, but had not got a receipt. Shortly after this he found he could’nt keep the pigs, so asked Colson to take them away. Fie took the_ mother. Colson’s man killed two of the pigs. [Witness here got considerably mixed as to the number of pigs he took from Colson.] Judgment for plaintiff for £2 16s lid and 9s costsi Same v, Evans. This case was withdrawn.

Same v. Hobbs. Claim £5 12s 9d. The defendant did not appear, and judgment was given for the full amount claimed, with costs.

Same v. O’Brien. Claim, £5 12s. Defendant proving that he had paid £1 16s 5d of the amount claimed, judgment was given for the balance—£3 15s 7d—with 13s costs.

Hamerton v. O’Dea. Claim £34, rent of house. Mr Barton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Adams for the defendant.

Gervase D. Hamerton, the plaintiff, stated (hat he was possessed, the quarter previous to November, 1880, of a house and section in York-street. He took the hou«e and land for a term of 5 years. On account of his leaving the house, he let it to O’Dea, who paid him one quarter’s rent in November, and another in February. After that O’Dea retained possession for' some months. He then came to witness’ office to ask witness to take Mr Beamish as a tenant in place of him (O’Dea). After Beamish had been in the house some time witness received two sums of £3 each from Mrs O’ldea. Ho wrote to Beamish telling that if the rent due was not paid he would distrain on him. Witness, a short time afterwards,happening to walk down to the house, found it empty, a window taken out of the sash, and several things damaged. Mr Barton in addressing the Court, said that apart'from her liability as executrix, Mrs O’Dea was liable as a widow, Mr O’Dea having died in Sept. 1881. Mr Adams here asked for a non-suit, on the grounds of the plaintiff not producing evidence of Mr O’Dea’s death and not producing probate. The Court upheld Mr Adams, and the plaintiff was nonsuited with costs.