RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 3298, 15 January 1879, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

: -;.-' : Tuesday, January 14. (Before H. McCulloch,. Esq., R.M.) Campbell and Ritchie . "v/ Meadows.— Judgment for plaintiffs for £il 2s, with 15s costs. y Laidlaw and Barr v. Keats.— Judgment for plaintiffs for £6 19s 9d, with 8s costs. • Rogers "v. Hare.— ln thi? case the plaintiff, Mr Rogers, tailor, had withdrawn the summons, but Mr Russell for the- defendant, Mr J. Hare, merchant, now applied for .costs, on the ground that sufficient notice had not been given of the withdrawal. The plaintiff asserted, that Mr Hare had consented to the adjournment that morning, without costs. His Worship held that. ; due notipe, must be given,, and awarded the defendant: £1 Is, professional costs. - k .- ■ ■■ Cuppels v. Wilson.— -Mr Finn fbr ; the plaintiff and Mr Harvey for -the defendant. • This was an action to recover £10 utider agreement respecting .the sale of a horse. The plaintiff deposed that- he bought a horse . from the defendant in November list. Wilson guaranteed .him as a staunch horse, and he. accepted that. statement. He .paid £55 for the animal, bn£ afterwards exchanged him to Mr Colin Gi-ey, farmer, Wallacetown. The horse was returned.-to him on the ground that it 'was not staunch, ; and Wilson afterwards promised.vto "give" him £10, the money to be returned i£ the horse turned out well. He did: not get . the i money, but: afterwards determined to sell the. horse for whatever he . could ;get. for it. Mr Colin Grey, farmer, and David Scott, ploughman, deposed that the horse was tried in various : ways. ;but) would not work. Mr Caldei' deposed that the horse was '.--'-a- rank; ;ijib, ; : and Mr G* F. Martin stated that he- sold; the^ horse by auction for Mr Cuppels without a '-guarantee. Mr Wilson, the 4ef endantj , deposed- that he bred the horse in-questibri,' and it had been: broken in about- eighteen-m6nths.' :^ animal to -beya jib; 'Mr; 'Cuppels bought the horse without any warranty. Other evidence ion -behalf of the defendant'had been, taken at a previous sitting of "the; courti shewing "that siheei the plaintiff had parted. wjth the horse it had worked well in the hands of Mr ,J^." A. Mitchell, of Long' Bush: Mr Harvey Contended that • it 'had-: hot;: been /distinctly proved that there was a guarantee, that His Worship 'would require to bel satisfiedithat . the animal with f air^tieatment "p^oyed?itself to be a: jib, and to.recbrer it mUst-be clistinctlyiproved that 'Mr Wilson agreed/tp:pay the £10. His Worship > said that the question to be' decided was' not* one as* to warranty, butas to whether the defendant promised to pay tie plaintiff £10, to be^returned:by the latter iif^fche- horse turned* out welll - The "ayei-meht of Jthe^ prpmise : li^ been sustained :in evidence>i' did not see how the wai*-.rantySvas-proved, but that the horse -was not staunch had. been .clearly establishidi'-v'JHe decided infayor of tbe plaintiff for £10, iwith £6 17s COStS/ .' : ;:" Beattie v. McCaughan.— Mr Reade for^the plaintiff, anc", Mr Finn for the defwdaat,

' --, ' This Av-^-ia'.daim';'^ ; *i^2i'l-5'3.'- 6d under irbe following circumstances; The : r pli^t-iff-.-.-jyas engaged by Mr. Hamilton, manageVjat-vvaut--ffie jate of 303 per week to '.'kill, and take J chavgrbf horses. He tbpk A charge of an entire ; from the Ist October 7 until the 14th December.- Ho claimed ;50s per week for this period, but; the defendant realleged that) he was only entitled to 80s. There were some minor it ems as to ex peases, and a pavmeht on account, involved. Mr • Hamilton" and Mr P. K. McCaughan .were -'•'-■• -called for thevdefence, the former admitting a that plaintiff-was entitled to extra payment 'for the three: weeks during which „he was '.:; actually travelling the country with the: ii)..'; horse. His Worship found for the plaintiff in the amount of -£25. 95. 6d, -with £3 12s costs. '.;. Rose v. l-h-ennan.— Mr Harvey for the plain- )); tiff, MrjiK; Rose, bookseller; and Mr Finn for the defendant, Lewis L. Brennan, adraugiits- . man; in the Survey "Department. • The plaintiff deposed that the defendant, came to 'him ..and told, him he had just com ptetcd a map of Invercargill for the Southland Building Sobriety, and was entitled to £.14 14s for the - -work. , Hestated.he was hard i;n and wauled .to go to. Dunedin to pay some debts he owed :> there, ilf he would oblige him with a cheque .for £11 lis. he would give him an order on the Society for the; amount due to him. -He ; told the defendant that he did not wish to .)- interfere with his arrangements, bntilie called /three or four, times and pressed him to advance the money.- He advanced the; £11 ; lis, but the Societydeclined to pay the order. He communicated that -toi. Mr Brcnnan>. and „•;. applied tp.him for the mpney,-but he declined . to pay. He did m ot. pui-chase for;£ll lis the chance of what the defendant was to get ; from the Society, but" merely ad vanced ' the --money. In crossrexamination, plaintiff stated : that there was- no sale note passed between ;•;*;■ '.ihem;.;: He) was: a director of:the Southland '■;'" Building Society. . The plan prepared by the. .) defendanttwas to his). mind; executed in.a; ; )very satisfactpry .manner., The •Directors of, the. Society' declined, to pay on the ground -that the work was not completed. He had writtea to :Mr Spence and to' the ShfveyorGeneral about the defendant, on account of ;• -the great amount- of impudence and im- :; pertinence he' <had received. from him. ; He • i -was told by the; Secretary of the Society (Mr Brown) that the amount due to the defendant was £15 15s, arid that accounted ifor the; insertion of that "sum in the order oh theSb- )''' ?. ciety, "but it appeared the correct amouht was : £14 145.; .-;. Mr Finn, in addressing the Court on behalf of hisv ; client, said) after preparing 'the plan the defendant )wanted ; a little 7 moriey, which was no disgrace to him. '.He- , ) believed he r-vas very efiacieht in his. own: de--- --)'... partment, but' his situation had; been jeopardised through) ithe action of the plaintiff. The defendant "then; stated that the plaintiff first '"'..' made the suggestion to him to advance £ 1 1 lls on the amount due to him by the Society. He. said * the Society were ibad payers, and itwpuld require a little influence -,- to get the money) He, could get., the money more easily 'than the witness.' After ;the \ Society refused to, pay, he cfiine to the'Albion V and blackguarded him for half an hpiir. ! He Nmderstood that the Society-did not like Mr >ose interfering as a):diiectpr, and the trans- " a^on between him)and;.the witness. jMr Ros'-Wag trying to make £3:3s„.out of him in a nigV jjg ne W as not to return the jbalarice. Mr Rosy^ c -- e^ io, -the matter all along as a director .Nrhree or four days ago he received an inJimai^;. totnee g eot that, the Society wanted soinV a (jc-ii''i ona i figures 'put. on- the ;,; map.and wou\ taen pay the ; amount.: Ultir mately the caseV, s adjourned for a week, to admit of the planN^-fog. completed. '-: ■ : Shepherd v.- Cuff"* -^ -Matthews for i the defendant. This wav a claim for 12s. for conveying materials I%^ tne bush to Ramsay's for decoratiV that .place. -The ; defendant denied liability^^ alleged that . " his i son, owed, the debt. S« Worship honsuited the plaintiff, '),..-'■ \ '