RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 1960, 16 April 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY. (Before W. Fbabeb, Esq., K.M.) , ' SIDE. ; v ANTONIO OBUGLIEN V. E. .BAIN. This was |i claim of £48 15s for money lent. ; "A ■■■'■■■'"•■ ■ '-■'■■ . ■■■'■ '-' '■ ■',:•■. The circumstances of the case were as follows : —Plaintiff' resided in Onehunga, and bad lent defendant £<tis-in Jane, 1872. The money had never been paid. Nothing about interested been mentioned, because the money was originally only lent for a few days. Plaintiff said he never bothered about interest, because he would be quite satisfied te get the principal. Judgment was given for £4D and costs, £8 3s. OSBOENE BEOS. V. J. LENTON. In ihis.case £1 10s was claimed for damages. Defendant carried some butter for the plaintiff, and it had become damaged on the way. The case was adjourned from last Court day for the magistrate's decision, a question having been raised as to whether defendant was a common carrier, • in. wEich case he would be liable. . His Worship said the case had resolved itself into a question of law, as to whether -defendant came within the category of common carriers. His Worship then quoted authorities, one of which maintained that a Sj^n holding himself out 'for hire to any one, was, a common carrier; but if he carted only for certain parties, he was a contractor. In the ( present case it had been shown in evidence ; that defendant had taken two parcels for different persons at the same time, that he took plaintiff's goods. He (His Worship) thought there could be no doubt that those expressmen who-received jobs from; everybody, and could go to which one, they chose, came under the category of common carriers. He would, therefore, jgive" judgment for plaintiff for the amount Lclaimed, and costs, which amounted* to i£3 10s.

\ CLABKE V. M'CULLOUGH. - ThiajtaXajuime^t:snmjßons_cM amount being £5 9s 2d. . ~ " ,i. Plaintiff said defendant was receiving £4 16s weekly.

John McOullough deposed that he told Clarke at the time he got the goods that he expected to have money from Kennedy. He expected to get as much as would pay Clarke for what he received. He had received no. money. He could pay 5s per week. - Plaintiff" said defendant only had 2s 3d coming from Mr Kennedy. His Worship said he would < postpone the case till the 13th of May to gvte defendant an opportunity of bringing" Mr Kennedy to Court in the meantime.:. JAMES BENSHAW V. LINCOLN CASTLE ' GkM.CO. This was a claim of £7 7s 5d for goods. No appearance of defendants, t and judgment was given for, the amount claimed and costs. ' * BA* V. CHAPMAN. In this case.the claim was for £9, the amount of a promissory note; There was no appearance of defendant. Matilda' ; .Rae, wife of James Bae, appeared to give? evidence, and judgment was given for *.tKe full amount and costs, 18s. * « PASCOE V. ELFIN. : This was a claim of 18§ 7s for food and raiment. '. '' a* The defendant _wa^ rlad of 15 years. He denied the liability, but said his father (who was in fhe.Fijis) owed the money. Sarah Pascoe deposed—That she kept a store. She had givendefendant himself the credit, and he promised to pay. Had receired 10s on account. .. Defendant said hehaddealt with plaintiff till his father came back from Hikutaia. He had been washing blankets at a battery for the last ttttgfetii*. He was .receiving £1 per week, which he "paftl forhis boardapd lodging. ••<; \ » His Worship told complainant she was foolish to have trusted a boy such" as defendant supposing he was ever so honest. , Thomas Edwin Thrap deposed that he was the boy's brother in law, and made a statement to show that, the father had left him and his three sisters. debt was the father's/ Witness -kept the whole family, when the boy was out of work. / v , .. , . His Worship said he had every sympathy with the last witness, and was glad to hear so good a character of the boy; -but it. would be hard that "plaintiff, a widow, should be the loser. He therefore ordered defendant to pay 5s per week when in work. . Adjourned Cases. T. Chapman and^R. Burrows v. J. Preagh—A.claim of £13 15s. This case has made its appearance on the charge sheet every Civil Court day for some time past, and to-day Mr • Brasiey did not appear. His Worship adjourned it; for a month, to the 14th of May. Lamb Bros. v. J. Patricks-Claim, £10 14s 10. Adjourned to 3Oth\April. C. R. Eidd v. Charles Ahier—A claim, of £8 Bs, for breach of agreement.