RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume IIII, Issue 1734, 24 July 1874, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

"%< THIS PAT. , .'.' (Before W, Fbaskb, Esq./R.UI.) CIVIL SIDE JUDGjJTEH-TS POX PLAINTIFFS. Wade v. Dale—judgment £5 9s Id, and costs £2 4s ; .Nahe v. Buckley—; ordered to pay the amount to-morrow, or one /month's imprisonment. Defendant i said he would not pay, as it was a-wrong., claim from begining to end ; ."W. Jacobs v. IL Cox—-goods, £3 14d, costs £1 1.7.. ADJOTJENE© CASES. " Crick y. Potatara—Bates £26-Ids—| adjourned to 31st; Crick r. Nikorim* | —rates £15 19s. His Worship, asked if this was rates claimed from a native re- ; siding on his own land, plaintiff replied yes; His. Worship also asked plaintiff if he had consulted a solicitor; plaintiff answered no, he was acting under the authority of the trustees. His Worship . advised plaintiff to take an adjournment,' as tlie case was of such importance, to give him time to consult with the board Us to" whether they would go on with the case, as a decision would rule other cases of a similar nature, which was very important. Adjourned for a fortnight. '• Defended Cases, b. m'tubk v. s v montgomebt. Claim of 6s for rates. Mr Tyler for plaintiff. Defendant said he had refused to pay as lie had received no benefit. Mr. Brodie and others had let themselves a contract in the district, and he objected to contribute to m»n who sat down and . played cards while his shirt was wet earning the money for it. Judgment'for plaintiff 6s, and costs 10s. B. M'TUBK V. ABMSTBONG. Kat«s, 10s. . The same defence was offered. Judgment for 7s, and 10s costs. ' B. m'tpbk: v; CHA-a. pyne. Bates, 10s. The same defence was offered as in. the previous case. Defendant said he had previously appeared;on a summons once before, but no plaintiff appeared. Judgment for plaintiff 10s, without costs. J. CBAIG V. A. BRUCE. Claim for commission, £25. Mr. Macdonald with Mr. Brassey appeared for,the plaintiff; Mr. Tyler for the defendant. Mr. Tyler stated that the case arose / from the »ale of a piece of ground known as the Loyalty mine, which had been sold for £1000. Plaintiff sworn aaid —I am an auctioneer in Grahamstown. Some time before the transaction, the defendant said he wanted to sell his interest in the claim. He afterwards had a good crushing and then wanted £1000. I told him I thought I knew of a purchaser. I subsequently saw Mr. Thomas, whom I -introduced to plaintiff as buyer and seller. I afterwards had a conversation with plaintiff, when he said two per cent, was too much, he could have had it done for less money at the Comer 3 A. Bruce, sworn, said —I sold the Loyalty lease for £1000. I know the plaintiff. He is a commission agent. He told me that he thought the Thames Goldmining Company would buy the claim off me if I saw Thomas. Thomas came to me and said he would come up anil see the claim on Monday. He did not tell me that Craig had spoken to him about the claim. When Thomas went to the claim we agreed for price. I did not agree to pay Craig's commission. Craig went in with us to the claim. He did not want to go, but I periuaded him. . Craig did not interfere with the purchase of the claim so far as I am aware. Edward Thomas, sworn, said—l am local agent of the Thames Goldmining Company. I bought"the Loyalty for thecompany. Craig spoke to me about the mine and said I would have nothing to do with it till I "had seen the ground. Craig first spoke to me about the ground. 1 heard nothing about commission: His Worship' considered the case not proved. Nonsuited. " . uM, . Defendant declined to receive costs. " Court adjourned.