CIVIL SIDE.

Thames Star, Volume VI, Issue 1776, 11 September 1874, Page 3

CIVIL SIDE.

Judgment.

H. Parslow t. J. Buchanan—Claim of £50, promissory note. This case was adjourned from Jast Court day for the magistrate's decision. His Worship gave judgment for the amount claimed and costs, £5 18s6d. ■ , . Judgment Summonses.

Michael Breen y. Henry Bargrove — claim, £6 15s. This case had been suspended that the plaintiff might produce evidence that defendant was able to pay. His Worship said he had made inquiries of defendant's master, and the £1 per week wages was not in addition to his board and lodging. An order was made that defendant pay 2s. per week. D. Magoffin t. H. F. Andrews—claim, £2 14s. 6d. H. 3?. Andrews deposed that he was the same person against whom Magoffin got a judgment in Greymouth. He had filed his schedule on account of pressure—had taken advantage of the Insolvency Court. Philip Warren v. Wm. Lomas —claim, £4 10s sd. Defendant wai examined as to his meant. He had offered plan tiff 5s p«r week, but he had refused to be satisfied unless he got the whole amount. He was already paying 5s per week on a judgment summons. An order was made for payment of ss. per week, commencing on Monday week.

JtTDGMEKTS EOB PLAINTIFFS

In the following cases judgment went for plaintiffs :—J. T. E. Kogan v. Golden Bar G.M.Co.—a claim of £17 2s for profes-

sional services—judgment for £1212s and costs £5 2s; J. W. Shaw v. J. Chapman —claim of £3 17s 9d, for goods; W. Davies v. P. Delahunty—claim of £4i 3s, balance of rent due to Mr. Kowe, for whom plaintiff is agent. Defended Cases. coote v. andbews.

This was a claim of 18a. 6d. for goods

Mr. Dodd appeared for defendant. Hii Worship enumerated the articles in the bill, which were composed chiefly of refreshments. He told the plaintiff he could not recover. Plaintiff said his Worsaip had given him judgment against a person for brandy. The case was looked up by the clerk: it appeared that the claim on that occasion had been for one bottle of brandy and the rest in cash, the defendant not appearing. The case was struck out. AUSTIN V. STEPHENS.

This was a claim for ejectment. Mr. Macdonald appealed for plaintiff; Mr. Tyler for defendant. T. H. Stephens deposed—That he lived in Mary-street, allotment No. 321. Had lired there three years. Had bought half an allotment and a house from W. H. Smith; he had not got the other half—that ' is, ho was living in the house on the other } half, but did not claim it. That half be- / longed to Mr. Edwin-Austin, and he had Uftitwith him to pay the rent to Mr. Stewart. (A receipt for the last payment was put in.) The payments were made to Mr. Stewart for Edwin Austin. He had paid Mr. Austin £3 for certain goods. (Letters were also put in from Mr. Austin to defendant, acknowledging receipt of one payment, and cautioning him to give up possession to no one.) Cross-examined by Mr. Tyler—Mr. Element had occupied one half of the allotment while I occupied the other, and when he left Austin took possession. The rent had been regularly paid up to the last payment, for which they had tfc,« receipt. J. C. Q. Austin deposed — That his brotherhadbeenUviDgontheThameg. He (witness) had bought an allotment, house, and furniture from Mr. Element. He paid £18 for the allotment, which was thatin respect of which the action had been brought. There were two cottages on the allotment. He subsequently came to a verbal agreement with his brother to sell him the allotment, on terms that

the principal be paid within 12 months, and the interest quarterly. The interest Pd principal had not been paid, and deidant knew that it was so. Witness had recognised in the house goods belonging to him. Witness' brother had. paid the ground rent in his (witness 1) name. Witness had never consented to defendant taking possession of the allotment. The annual value of the cottages was about £15.

John Allen was examined as to the signature of Mr. Austin. He had not seen it signed but when brought to him he reaS it over, and Austin t old him that he had sold the furniture to Stephen. W. H. Smith was examined. He put in the lease he had got from Mr. Stewart to whom he had paid the ground rent up to the time he had sold the allotment to Element.

Mrs. Stephen was called and corroborated the evidence of her husband as 'to tho payment having been on account of Gr. Austin, and not the plaintiff. This concluded the evidence.

Mi*. Tyler considered they had made out a prima facie right of possession of half the allotment. As the plaintiff had sought to obtain possession of the whole allotment, he could not succeed when defendant had shown thathe had a title to a portion. - , Mr. Macdonalil replied, and rsi*ed the question of the lease put in by Smith. Mr. Tyler had mentioned in the foregoing portion of the case, that defendant' was very poor, and that he was not charging for his services. His Worship suggested to Mr. Macdonald that it would be best to como to some arrangement, as there wa» Tory little to be got out of the defendant under those circumstances. The case was dismissed. A dicussion as to costs arose, and jndgment was ultimately given for £3. and costs. There was another case sefc down for hearing, in which J. C. Q. Austin claimed £40 damages for goods—the furniture referred to in the former case. It was ultimately decided that defendant should take out tho furniture from the house he h»d been in charge ot, and hand over' possession of the house and half allotment to plaintiff. '"' The Court adjourned.