RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XL, Issue 3016, 24 May 1884, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TIMABTT.— FeujJiT, Mat 23bd. (Before J. Beewiek, Esq., 8.M., and T. W. Hall, Esq., J P.) DBUSHJSNBEBB. One man was fined Si, and another 10s for tbis offence. J. Gibson, junr., was fined 40« for being drunk whilst m charge of a hone, and for using obscene language m a public place. A prohibition order under the Licencing Aot waa also ordered to be issued against him. A man Darned Josiah Spence, charged with lunacy from exceaaive drinking, was remanded till Tuesday next for medical treatment. BBBAOH OI BYK-LAW. 3. Stumbles we* fined 10* for driving a bone through the streeti daring prohibited hoari without a formal permit. OATTLH TBBBPAB3. Dennis Hoare waa fined 20s, T. Oeaney 10s, Joiephus Mnrphy, Henry Anderson and A. Chisholm 6s each, for allowing cattle to wander at Urge on public roads m tbe Levels district. J. B. Cappa v. W. Stonyer— Claim £61 0» Id, for refund of £11 Os Id, amount recovered by alleged illegal execution, and £50 damages for tbe trespass. Mr Perry, instructed by Mr Homersley, for plaintiff ; Mr White for defendant. The evidence m thiii case was heard on the 13th init. The principal facts were as follow: Capps obtained a judgment m the District Court against Stonyur for £17 19a 2<3, and Btonyer a judgment m the Berident Magistrate's Court against Capps for £9 li Id. Stonyer paid £35 on account o! tbe judgment against him. Capps forwarded the amount be waa adjudged to pay, to hia solicitor, Mr Hamersloy. Mr Hamtraley taw Stonyer, and informed him that C»pps bad lent the money to him. Be then rominded Stonyer tbat he had a claim of £5 10s 4i against him, on a balance of an old account, and Stonjer agreed (according to Mr Hamer«ley'» evidence, Stonyer birucelf denying it) tbat part of tho money received by Mr Hamertley from Cap pi should be applied to extinguish this old claim, and the remainder be credited to Stonyer, against tbe balance still due by him to Capps under the District Court judgment. At tbe adjourned hearing of the caae Stonyer produced a receipt m full of Mr Hamereley's account against bim, given him by Mr Davidson, who was collecting Mr Haroersley'e account* ; but it wsb shonn that the account waa not paid m full, and the turn accepted m payment by Mr Davidson *H entered m tbe books with-

out any remark to show that it was aocepted aa a final payment. Mr Hamersley, as Capps' solicitor, wrote to Messrs White and Smitlison, Stonyer's solicitors, informing thorn ef the arrangement ho had made with Stonyer, and making suggestions as to the manner of dealing with the rrst of the stun be had received, to which communication he receivod no reply. Stonyar not paying the balance duo by him to Capps, under the District Conn judgment, the 1 all or through his solicitor took out a distress for the amount, less £3 10s 9.1, the sum credited to Stonyer from the £9 Is Id placod m Mr Hamorsley's hands by Oapps. The money was ot onca paid under the distress, and tho Bame day Stonyer, by hie solicitors, took out a distress against Capps for the £9 Is Id, and he paid it the second time, uuder protect, with costs, £1 19*. The present suit was brought to recover the £11 Oa Id so paid, with £50 damages for illegal distress. The Resident Magistrate, m giving judgment, said the Benob I. ad no doubt Unit Mr Hamersley had acted m perfect bona Ides m deducting the £5, though m error, nnd that Stonyer bad agreod with him that the amount should be deducted. After Mr Hamersley hud made, this arrangement with Stonyer, and informed his solicitors, the ieeue of a distress warrant was illegal, and therefore Capps was entitled to reoover the amount sued for, less the sum dedurfc d m error, £5 10s 4d. Judgment would thorefore be for £10 9' 9d,— £s 9s 9d amount to bs refunded, and £5 for damages. The issuing of (he distress by Stonyer was v vindictive proceeding, to cay the least of it, after the letter sent by Mr Hamordey to Stonyer's solicitors, which letter was not answered by them. The costs of Court, £2 10), and eolicitor's fee, £L Is, were alto abowed to plaintiff. Wai. Huggius v. Wm. Erans— Claim £12 3s Bd, balance due for work done in' superintending erection of machinery. Mr White for pUiutiff, Mr Perry for defendant. Judgment was also given m this case, whioh was commenced on the 14th inst and resumed on Monday last. His Worship gave judgment for dofeudant, with oitt, holding that the Bkilled evidence as to the value of the work done by plaintiff wa» greatly m favor of defendant.