Magisterial.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 89, 26 August 1868, Page 3

Magisterial.

CIIUIBTOIIUIICH. TIJWIIMT, Al/OUVI' 25. (noforo 0. 0. Bovron, JKmi,, 11, M.) CIVIL OAHKfI. Qr.ovicn v. Mim. H UMi'iniKYfl. — Clnim for X l 4 for hoard ntnl lodging Mr Joynt appeared for dofMidiwt, who opjwftcrt ilio claim on tho ground that hlio hud ronidod with plaintiff, during tlio period ahnrged for nt tlio oxpronw Invitation of lila wlfo, Ii appeared (hat dofitndnitt Imd been boarding at plaintiffs for «o»»<o I lino provlouu to the period claimed for, and had piild at tlio rato of £1 per wcolc, hho wn« then unmiirricd, und boro tlio rmmo of Dwvor, Hho \\w\\ l)con employed for a oliort tlino iih bnrninld nt tli<i VVlilto ilnrt Hold, and cc i aned to t-eoido wlih plnlnllfi: durln« that time On leaving tlio Whlta Hart Hotel «ho wont Imclc to plaintiff, mwl nfliiln Tonldcd ilioro, From thin to the tlmo of finally lcavlnj? hlio remained n» inmalo of (ho houno, and, aoftordiiiK to plaintlfi 1 , paid for oovornl of tlio flrst fow woolen Ijonnl, Afler hoi- marrlauo and removal to Ilokfllktt Mio mndo plalntlJF'B wlfo «t profloiU of a droiiff, wlilch ctml Xl 2 V 2», ftiid Jior liuHhand alno ficnt a present of a ca«o of wlno nnd oplritH, The ffr«t, had, however, boon prontlncd a long tlmo ago, and tlio lattor wan nici oly connidercd an a complimentary ono on account of defendnnt'n marrlagOi Defendant denied luivinn imld for any hoard after leaving tlio WliUo Ilnrt, and averred that It Wft« Jtlien flho ronolved Mro Glover's Invlta tlon, Hho had offered money to Mm Qlovor, who, however, docllncd to rccolro it on

account of tho Invitation, Bho admitted that tlio (lroofl hud boon promlxed Mra Glovor lon/t boforo tho period for which board wai claimed, l>»t ftuM nho would not hay© expended «u«h a liu'jfo mim upon It bad it not boon Intended m nn acknowledgment for the hoard aii.l lodging, Plaintiff callcil hl« servant to provoHichidebtodiuwA of defendant, but her evidence being liuniAlorlal Hio enso waft adjourned for a niontli la order Hint Mm Glovor, who wnn 111, might lio brought ■forwurd an a witness, VR. IJiuttih v, Hiu'iTTi— ln thin caflo, pluln■fut sought to recover JX), balance of amount , for which he hud wild t.o defendant tho holo right of vending fruit on tlio vuoo ground during tlio lint HtcoplcohaunH. PlnlntiiV proved Hint ho had purchased tho right of soiling every dos'Tiptlou of vefroHlnnfiiiWi at tho mcc«, and had (hen mib-lci. iho nupplyln^ of fruit lo dofondunt for XI, Xl«of wliloli hud b'.'en paid on account. Defendant handed in mi nKrcemont, which provide, l that no ono but himtolf who to noil fruit on Die ground, butavorrod Hint bovmml ollkm'm bad been permitted to do no with plulntlll'rt oonsont, mul defendant's Hftlo being thereby /jointly Injurud, lio luid rofunod to pay tlio »urn agreed upon. I'lalnilll'iidmUtcd fdflnlng tho agreemen',, and «l»o that fl.xno oih«rn had *old fruit, but urged thai ho had not rocolvod motioy from Htcni, ulUioii^li ho told them thoy would lmvo lo pay X.I eiioh for 80 doing, Thin ho nari Intended thoy should pay to dofoixiiWit, but h« had not asked dofftndivnlM permission «o tholr being Allowed to noil for that fium. Jll.q Wor« ship considered ilmt t!io contract had been broken, mid tint defendant hi\d not derived uny greater advantage than those who had been told they would have to pay jCI. Dofondnitt having already paid that luini to plain • Uir, judgmont would bo given for defendant \rlih coiitH. li\ liAMiiKitT v.T. ('). MuuiiNfl,— Olulm ofi jCi'Ji bnlimco of two wcolm 1 wages iih cab driver, «t X2 per week. Thu period olmrgod for \vnft from tho l«t to Hio lGlh of Hiu cur. rout mouth. lMuliitllt worked during tho wliolu of tho flrHt wuelc, and up to Tucotlay in the Hccoud when defendant told him to go hoin:), u» ho did not wunt him any moro, Defendant donlod having dincharged plaintiff, but mild Ihi hud (old him on the riiornlnic in qiu'iition to go to thontand. Instead of tho Hallway tftuiion, Plaintiff did not obey thin, but went to tho station, fuid then on again bolir-t told to go lo Iho nUud wont to iho nubia and took hid horse out of tho cab, Defendant wont and spoko to him, when plnintlfl! Htruulc him twlco, .Defendant opposed payment of tho bulanco of tho fleet weok's wngeH, bconu-'o, as ownorof tho cab driven by plaintiff, lio had beon flned for plaintiff carrying 1111 ukcohh of piwwngorw, and lio coiiAidered (bat plalntlfl\ihould rofund thu amount. 1'laliulfl! recalled, admitted being ordered to go to tho ritand on the Tuesday morning instead of tho Hallway nintlon, and nltm to being aftorwardn told to go from tho station 10 tlio huwhl, but mild he had boon dlnoliarpjed boforo rocoivliif; (ho luat order, and I Imt wan tboreiuion ho did not obey it, Ho denied having Htruck dofondant boforo bolng hunßtlU nwmulUid, A witness wa« called by defendant to (iupport his ovl^ denco on (he tattor point. I llh Worohlp fiuld philiitiA! was olearly ontided to tho b.ilanco of bin wiigoa on thu Jli'Ht wook, hh tho refunding of tho flno impoflcd lor carrying extra pttHflongurfl could only bo oonwlilered when claimed by defendant tv\ damugiiH. .ludgmont would theroforo bo given for tho flr«t wook'H balance of XI, but pluintlirs leaving waa uecordlng to bin own ftlatemunl, hid own doing, and nothing would be allowed for the mscond wook, I'lalutlff would iilho havo to pay cools. J. AND .J. il. lIANICINfI V. QItAOH lIriOIIKNH, A« iiXItOUVMX 01' TIIH LaTM Tiioh, I'tiToiiicNH, — Thirt wuh an action lo recover XI B lrtu for oroijtlon of a fltablo and ithed 011 land routed from dofeuduiit. Mr Cowlifdinw appeared for the [ilnlntifl'M, and Mr J. 3. Williama for thn rtufi-'noe. riiilntlftu' caso was tltab they liad rented a couugo and land from defendant on a memorandum of agreement with a vwbul ngroomout Hint tbey were to croel a Htalilb and flhod, tbu uu«t of which was to he deducted from tho rent, Tho work had been done, and tho amount claimed wan on that account, A letter written mior to the agroomoiu of tenancy wan produced, in which defendant said MlO would not object to allow Homclhlng for tho erection of a loono box, nnd plalntiiiTrj Htaled that tho verbal agreement had been renewed after the memorandum wan fd^ned, J'lalutlirn had refiiflod to Hign a Miumn ed agreoment until til 3 ntablo wan orcctea, and that wan (ho reason why only a memorandum wao drawn up. IVy Mr Willlamn i they had paid ono quartern rent ulnco- tho hlahlcwasorecied, but It wat» only boeaiwo the money w/ih very urgently asked for that nothing wmi deducted from it. IL(« Worship hare remarked that ho did not (too how ho could set anido tho memorandum of cgrccment «nd ho did not think it wit» much u«o going furlhor with tho ci\9o, Mr Cowlirihuw Mild ho did not wlhli lilh Woi'flhlp lo Bet imido Hio momorandum which wan merely ono of tenancy, and tho ono for erection of the otablo wn« ontlndy apart from It, Tho proHent action \ra« merely to recover money paid on behalf of defendant. llln Worship agreed to Uilh, but milt tlio money whh expondod on tho promiiioa rented undor tho momorandum of ngroement, nnJ if permanunt improYomcnt were cfl*«:<".t««l without a covenant to provide olherwlHo, tho tenant could merely leavo them whon lilm oeeupailon conned. Mr Cowlitthaw nald if tboro hud bcon any obllffiition on tho plaint llf h In (ho memorandum of agreement tho matter would lmvo boon entirely difTcront, but they had inertly erected the buildings In pnrtiuunco of a verbal agreement that the amount wan to bo deducted from tho rout, Ili/i Worship pointed out that tho plnhillffH had admitted paying ro'it fllnco completion of tho building* without doduotlng nnythlng for tho improveimmtß, and ho ooimldorcd tboro wnii a groat dldioulty about receiving tho ovidonco at all, Mr WllllamH called his Wornblp'H attention to pngo OS2 at Taylor on cvldoco, and flomo

urgumont omued cvcnluilly rfiaultlng In tbo plaintlU'd bolng non-iulto-l. G, W, ani> G, White v. T. Saurt.— Tn thltt *ctlon tho plalntiirs Bought to recover &10 for dotontlon, illegal impounding and damngo dono to cattle, by bclngdrlvvn without proper caro, togotber with £2 1 Is fld, amount <»f fftt'H pnld to roloaoo tho samo from thg pound. Ono of tho plaintiffs cxitmlncd miid det'ondaiit had driven ID bead of tholr cattle from a fiO aor« nootlon of land, bolonfihff to Mr Htanloy, on to hl« own lund, and thence to tho pound, In reply to Iho Honoh, dofondanf adnilltod tlmt bo had dono ao, but produced a memorandum from Mr Stanley, giving him tho neccisary authority, Plaintil? contlnnol ; When it whs known th« dofondant had tf»ken tho ofttllo, tho plalntiffa went nnd linked him to reloano thorn, hut he refUHi'd to do so unlonH ho was paid £2 17s. Ttiln tho plaintiff's declined to do, and nubiequontly took Mr Htiuiloy, ownor of tho JO aero Htcllon, wl» ( > alno n«k«d defendant to release them, but without avail. Tho cittlo were driven to iho pound at 9 o'clock tho oaiuo night, and wero ho hurried that a young huiff r wiih norloutily Injured, and shortly uftcr being brought back home gave birth to a calf, which died. Mr Uule wan called, and proved that tho muscles of ouo of tho heifen lotffl had been strained. Two witnesses were alno called to provo tbo time at which they had /icon tho cattlo p»»» certain places In order to «ln>w that they had boon hiuttily di' Won, but nothing material wa« elicited. Tho owner of tho section from which the cattlo wore Impounded, was also called, and proved to uahlng defendant to act them fre#, Dofondant donlod that tho cattlo hud lu-en driven hurriedly, and called Miobaol Uurko Oiio of tho drivers, who Raid they hud been titken.to tho pound In a " fair and aisy manner," and alflo that ho did not «co a heifer in calf amongrtt them, Tho Pound kevpor wn« also called, and oaid that tho oattlo arrive! in tf.md oi'dei' and went away tho nmno. They did not appnav to have been hurried, and ho did not «eoa holfcrin calf ninongst them. Ills Wornhlp nald defendant had no right to reIciiso tho oftUlo when rcqucntcd to do bo by Mr Hlanloy, It was true that ho huda moinoraudum authorising him to Impound cattlo from the land, but it waa ono which Mr Btmloy could at any timo revoke, and It wan oloarly proved that no had dono ao, Judgment would therefore be given for tho pound f.oes--jC2 I In fld, mid double Ilmt fium for damaged, besides (iOHtfl and wltncHßCfl cxpoiifloo. In the caoo of L. Morllnor v. Clms. Luke, olalm of X2l da, judgment wan given for defendant, the plaintiff not appearing when called upon, Judgment for full amount and coatu was given in iho following canes :— J. Anderson v. W. Hryaut, £4 lOs 9d | City Council v. R L. Hwivn, ift2 5h | Evening Mail v. Back and Williams, Jiti lUh (id \ same v, 11, Sharpies, 1 1 c i G. Hobortß v. H, Falloon, 40 Oa lOd j Jamoa Molloy v. W. iforHtoi 1 , JE.I \ JSaino v. W. Klllott, £\ \ Samo v. James Gapos, £\ 7« Od i 11. Montgomery v. G. Hamilton, Xt) 10a.