RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Taranaki Herald, Volume XL, Issue 9122, 1 July 1891, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesimy, June 30.— Before C. C. Kettle, Esq., R.M. Disputed Case. — F. W. E. Cauington v. Thomas Julian. Mr Standish for plaintiff, and Mr Roy for defendant. Claim, £7 18_ upon alleged balance of account, of which defendant denied any liability. After hearing the plaintiff, and also the defendant, and three witnesses on his behalf, the Court reserved judgment till the afternoon. — In the afternoon plaintiff was re-called as to the stock he had when the agreement was made between him and Julian. Julian told him that the lease from Holdrich to Julian was at Mr Roy's office, but he never went to see it. He borrowed £12 to buy cattle, and he told Holdrich that the five cows he had given to Julian for the lease were fully worth £25.— 1n giving judgment His Worship said this was a claim for £7 18s, being balance, due by the defendant to plaintiff in consequence of defendant having failed to complete a sale to plaintiff of defendant's interest in a certain leasehold property, The evidence was most conflicting, but His Worship was of opinion that the account of the transaction, as given by the plaintiff, was the correct one. The defendant's conduct in burning the plaintiff's letter the day after he was served with the summons was, to say the least of it, most extraordinary, and the reasons givon by tho dofendant were, in His Worship's opinion, absurd and untrue, it was quite ovident that the letters were J destroyed by the dofendant because they j would have probably been etroug evidence against him. The evidence of Jury and Uodßon was also unreliable, and Mr 1 Holdrich's evidence dI3 not really conflict with the evidence of the plaintiff. As there had been an entire failure of consideration, judgment would be for plain- 1 tiff for £7 18s, and costs.

JUDUMISNT FOH PLAINTIFF.— HaI Goodacre, P. R. Carthcw, and \\f . M. Runciman v. R. T. Roebuck. Judgment for £7 Is 3d, and £1 2s 6d. Samo v D. K. Gooch Claim, £2 11s lOd, and costs 16s 6d. Mr Hughes appeared for plaintiff. C. Rennell (Collector of N.P. Uurbor rates) v E. Bayly ; claim 148 6d, and costs 10s. The Court rose.