RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 2244, 30 November 1881, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TlMAßU.— Tobsdat, Sot. 29. (Before B. Beeiham, Esq., 8.M.) BBUNKENHE3B. A first offendrr was fined Sa. tUKACr. A man named Michael Murphy waa brought up, charged with being of unround minil, and wai committed to the Sunnytide Asvtum on tbe certificates of Drt Macdonald and Hogg. CIVIL CASES. Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default m Die fallowing €•»»<■• : — Smith T. Moore, claim £1 14* ; aame v. Beade, claim 3. Cd. balance of account having been paid into Court; same v, Dr Williams, claim £1 la ; same v. Grecg, claim £1 Os 6d. Keid and Gray v. Wildermoth— Claim, £7 5a 6d. Mr Hatnereley for defendant. Tbe case was adjourned by consent to ROth December, on the application of Mr Hamersley, on the groundt that p oceedinga m bankruptcy were awaiting decision m the Supreme Court. * T. Qeaney v. Broinahan — Claim, £2 15a. for damagea to a buggy lent on hire. Mr Jameson for plaintiff, Mr Hammley for defendxnt. Plaintiff deposed to having let hi« buggy to defendant, together with a eet of harnesf, which ho borrowrd tor him. Defendant's evidence wat to the effect that the barnesa waa m bad order, and waa the cause of the horae playing up and doing the damage. Judgment waa given for defendant. E. Smith v. Scoringe — Claim. £3 12« 6d. This case arose m connection with the discharge of a cargo of coals from a vessel m tbe harbor — the barque Chaudiere. It. appeared that defendant tin olaintiff and requested hia influence m procuring the work of discharging tbe vettel for him, offering him a percentage at an inducement. The work waa given to defendant, the coals belonging to the plaintiff, bat on completion of the discharge of tbe cargo it turned out that dofendant bad burnt, come two tons m the engine which he vied for the purpoie. Flain'iff now sought to recover for the coal co uted and for the commission agreed upon. Plaintiff called Bobert Storm and J. Francis, m support of hia claim, who proved tbat tbe coals had been used by de'endant, tnd that the charges were fair an 1 customary. Defendant denied owing plaintiS anything, but be called no witneaaet. Tbe Benoh gave judgment for the amount claimed with cottt. Beid and Gray v. Meredith — Claim, £4 16 6d, for patterns made lor the purpose of tome Castings ordered by defendant. Mr Hameraley fur defendant. De'eudsnt disputed the claim on the ground that he never ordered tbe patterns and had not had them. He had only ordered tbe dttinga and anew nothing about the pattern* until be got an account for them. John Dryidale. manager for plaintiffs, gave evidence to the effect that defendant ordered tome ciatiugs, snd that it wai nece«a«ry to make a pattern for them, and that he bad told defendant ao. Hit Worship gave judgment for plaintiffs, leas an item of 10s 6d charged for ioterett. Sherratt v. Drqubart— Claim, £12 loa 6d, for goods tuppHed. Mr Jameson for plaintiff, and Mr Beid for defendant. Tbe gilt of this caie waa that plaintiff had tup plied timber to a contractor named Packnan on an order from Mrt Urquhart, who had guaranteed a sum of £6 on behalf of the contractor. Plaintiff deposed to Bupplyiog the timber on an order produced, tigntd by Mr* Urquhnrt, to wbomhelroked forpayment. H. Packman, the contractor for the building for which the timber wat supplied, proved getting it, and ftnted that he went to Mr Sherratt, Bnd arranged to get the timber from him, paying him cash for it. Mrs Urquhart deposed that abe had nothing to ■do with Packman* arraDgerperjtt ; the had become responsible for one amount of £6 for him, but that waa all. Hia Worahip g»ve judgment for defendant, staling that it had been ahown m tbe evidence tbat plaintiff bad been particular m getting one guarantee from defendant, and that tho action of both parties did not tend to prove her liability to aray further aum. Mr Jameton demurred to Hia Worahip't ruling, but Hi* Worship said tbat he decided the c&ss not aa one of abstruae law, but at one of facts. There waa no evidence to show that Mrs Orquhart wan liable beyond the amount of the guarantee <b« had given. J. W. White v. M. J. Hart— Claim £11 lit, for half share of a deed of partnership. Mr 'White conducted bis own case, Mr Tosswill fo. defendant. Plaintiff deposed (o tbe particular! of the case "-'' -H-rutted on cross-examination tbat the >u..<.^i bad, less £2 2s, originally been charged to Mr Jonas m hi« firm') boukt, but th« half of the account wat charged to Mr Hart on completion of the deed of partnership. Mr Toaawill argued the case at rocne length on behalf of his client, and after hearing birr, Hia Worabip gave judgment m favor of plaintiff (or the amount claimed, with coita, £1 Is. Bborif t and another T. Welli— C'Vim, £12 10*, for rent, due. Hia Worahip gave judgment for the amount due, with cott«£l, and ordered defendant to give up poftsetsion of tbe premises on or before the 29th December nrxt. Craigie v. Gilliam— Claim, £*? lOi 9d for gooda sold and supplied, Dofcndant, m defence, laid he bad given plaintiff nn order on the party for whom be had worked, for the amount. Plaintiff deposed that the order had not been accepted, and the Benoh btld that defendant wat primarily liable, and pave judgment for the amount claimed and coa,tt.