MAGISTERIAL.

Timaru Herald, Volume 5264, Issue 5264, 15 October 1891, Page 4

MAGISTERIAL.

TlMAßTT— • Wbdhesday, Cctobbb 14th. (Before C. A. Wray, Esq., E.M.) eim cases. In the following nasea judgment went by default for amounte claimed and cOßts t— W. Wroford v. W. Wildermoth, claim 10a Id (costs 7s) jsanis v. J. Garry, claim £1 10a Id (costs S."); Henry Logan v. J. Sweeney, claim £l 5s (costs 6»)A. Li. Cor v. Or. P. Wood, claim £5, <3amag9s ilr Raymond for the plaintiff, and Mr. Postlethwaife for the defendant.

Jrom the evidence for the plaintiff it waa shown that on the 19th September, 1891,; he purchased a poDY from the defendant for £ 10, aud that after the safe the defendant refused to give delivery. Plaintiff gave details of conversations and put io letters between him and the defendant, and later on between their respective solicitnra. Plaintiff alleged strongly that a lona fide aala had taken place. He had paid the gnin named by defendant, End to show that he waß anxious to have ' the pony wu» prepwed to give as much as £15 for it. For 'the defencu the pony waa said to. ■be the property of Mrs Wood, and thst the: defendant could not sell it without her consent ; that Mr Cox had wished to buy the pony and had been given a trial of it, and tbat m the course ol a conversation defendant offered to taie £10 for the pony. On this mm being named the defendant said that the plaintiff puahed a note iuto hii hand (at the time he did not know' whether it was £l or £10), but he made coma demur at taking it. In the letters which paased between the parties after this, Mr Wood wrote that he asked Mra W"od if she would consent to oeil the pony, nvid she said certainly not • and as a result iho defendant returned the £10, as the pony being Mrs Wood's property he could not dispo3o of it. Charles Baker, (jroo'rn, al-o ' gave evidence for the defence, alleging chat the plaintiff had anid f.h-it the pony was his subject to Mrs Wood's consent. ' .

As rebutling evidence to that of defendant, ■who eaid that plaintiff had thrust the £10 note on him, Mr Baymond 'called Charle* Ejan, whs aaid that plaintiff had paid the £10 oter to Wood at McLean's office and Wood had aocepted.it m payment for, the pouj. No condition as to fcheeale wa? made at thabttme.

After counsel had briefly addressed the oourf , Hie Worship- gave judgment for amodnt claimed and coats (court 9s, witnesses 17a lOd, counsel's fee £ 1 Is), total £7 7s lOd.

Two or three other cases were called on but were settled by consent and the court rose.