MAGISTERIAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 3945, 9 December 1880, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTOHUBCH. Wednesday, Dbo. 8. (Before Nugent Wood, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL OASES. Judgments by Default. — Judgment was given for the plaintiffs in the following cases by default : — Mulligan v. M'Mahon, claim £28 18s 7d ; Page v. Prince, claim £17 ; Wilson, Sawtell and Co. v. Jones, claim £34 7s 6d. Hazleuubst v. Batchelob.— Claim £20. Mr Stringer for plaintiff, Mr Slater for defendant. The amount claimed was for tho goodwill of a balsery business, sold by plaintiff to defendant in May, 1879. A set-off of £12 2s 9d for goods supplied was pleaded and allowed, and defendant denied further indebtedness, on the ground that he had " handed over " certain customers to plaintiff. Judgment was given for plaintiff, with, costs, the eet-off being allowed. Gkobgb v. Alloway. — Claim for the value of a pair of boots alleged to have been sold to defendant two j ears ago. Mr Izard for plaintiff, Mr O'Neill for defendant. It appeared that this was a case of mistaken identity, and plaintiff was non-Buited, with costs. Eckbekg v. Sycamohe. — Claim £46 3s. Mr Izard for plaintiff, Mr Beeves for defendant. It appeared that in May, 1877, plaintiff leased a house from defendant for one year, with a purchasing clause. £27 a year was to bo paid in quarterly instalments, both as rent and interest on tho purchase money. Plaintiff did not purchase the property at the year's end, but nevertheless continued to occupy it for Beveral months longer, until he had paid at variouß times the amount now sought to be recovered, to enforce payment of part of which defendant had put in a distress. Plaintiff sought to recover the amount he had paid while in the house, on the grouud that the purchasing clause of the lease had not been carried out, and also that distraints had been put in his house illegally. The evidence was somewhat conflicting, defendant asserting that the plaintiff had never offered to purchase the house at the time agreed upon, and plaintiff denying tbie. The Benca held

that plaintiff had at least held possession of the house for 18 months, and was bound to pay the rental agreed upon (£27 per annum). As, however, he had paid Bomewhat more than this, defendant ought to refund tho difference. Judgment for plaintiff for £4 6e, and coats. Stcamore v. Eckbebg.— Claim £16s 4s. This was an application for defendant (the plaintiff in the former case) to show cause why he had not complied with an order of the Court, made in April, 1879. Defendant denied that he had been served with the summons, and it appeared that judgment had gone by default. The case had been adjourned by Mr Mellish to enable defendant to prove an alibi at the time when the summons was said to have been served (April 9, 1879). Defendant now stated that his witness could, not bo fonnd. The Bench said that as Mr Mellish had dealt with tho case previously, it had better be left for him. The amount was accordingly ordered to be paid into Court, with the understanding that a re-hearing would take place when Mr Mellish was able to take the case. Defendant to pay costs and solicitor's fee. Gbeenwood y. Pynb. — Claim £10 ; Mr M'Connel for plaintiff, Mr Izard for defendant. The action was to reoover expenses incurred in raising a loan of £400 for defendant, who denied having authorised plaintiff to raise £400, asserting that he had said that £700 was the sum he wanted. The Bench said there appeared to be no doubt but that Mr Greenwood had been authorised to raise the loan, and gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed and costs. Oeotjch v. Rogers. — Claim £20. Mr Spackman for plaintiff. The object of this action was to recover possession of certain wearing apparel and other articles detained by defendant on account of plaintiff owing for his board. The amount alleged to be due for board (£4 15s) was pleaded as a set-off, and £2 15s of that sum was acknowledged by plaintiff. Defendant was ordered to give up possession of the articles detained within one week, or in default pay the sum of £20; also, to pay costs and solicitor's fee. Habgbeavbs v. SnAßPE.— Claim £60 17slid. Mr Cowlishaw for plaintiff, Mr Stringer for defendant. It appeared that plaintiff had supplied timber and other materials to one Ward, to construct a house for defendant, who gave a guarantee to plaintiff for £50 towards the coßt of thi» material. Defendant afterwards paid £25. The first guarantee was destroyed, and according to plaintiff's statement the defendant became responsible for the whole coßt of the timber, &c, supplied. Defendant asserted that he only became responsible in the eveot of Ward finishing his contract with him for the erection of the house, which he had not done, but had left the building in an unfinished state. After hearing the evidence and arguments, the Bench resolved to give their decision on Dec. 15. Gunbt r. Fibheb.— Claim £21 7s. Mr Izard for plaintiff ; Mr Joyce for defendant. This was a claim for money asserted to hare been lent, and plaintiff was nonsuited with costs. This Dat. (Before John Ollivier and G. Leslie Lee, Esqs.) Judgments by Default.— ln tho following cases judgment was given for plaintiff by default : — Venables v. Gumming, claim £3 6s 3d j Ogden v. Thomas, claim 19s 7d ; Moffatt v. Milner, claim £5 2s 6d. Mr Joyce appeared for plaintiff in this case. Sheath v. Pipbb.— Claim 9s 9d. Defendant asserted that he tendered* the amount to plaintiff's clerk on Nov. 5, and wag refused ; he was told the matter was in the handß of the Court. He had not received the summons till Nov. 25. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, but without costs. Champ v. Adams.— Claim £1 11s for rent. A set-off was pleaded for preparing certain plans. Judgment for plaintift for amount claimed, with costs. Escotx v Geobge.— Claim £6 4s 4d. Mr Spackman for plaintiff. This action was to recover certain sums alleged to have beea overcharged in an account for goods supplied and commission for valuing stock. Judgment for plaintiff for £4 10s, with costs and solicitor's fee.