MAGISTERIAL

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7045, 23 December 1890, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL

CHRISTCHURCH. (Before R. Westenra, J. P. Jameaon, and H. J. Hall, Esqs.) Civil Cases.— Langdown and Co. v. Price, claim £27 12a 4d. Adjourned to Jan. 5. — Smith v. Murray, claim J873 33 Id. Adjourned to Jan. 5. — Anderson v. Barnett, claim £5 19s 6d. Judgment for plaintiff by default.— Jameaon and Anderson v. Wright, claim. J2IO IGa. Judgment for plaintiffs by default. — Aulsebrook and Co. v. Collette, claim £6 Iss Bd. Judgment for plaintiff by default. — Slater v. Fergusson, claim .£24 6s. Adjourned to Jan. 6. — Hopkins and Baggs v. Taylor, claim .£1 4s. Judgment for plaintiffs by default. — Brand v. O'Neill, claim £25. Adjourned to Jan. 5. — Ellesmere v. Austin, claim 3s 6d. Judgment for plaintiff by default. — Dicken and Co. v. Merrin, claim £7 7s 4d ; judgment for plaintiffs by default. — Same v. Hammond, claim £1 7s Gd; judgment for plaintiffs by default. — Bell v. Stevenson, claim £1 ; judgment for plaintiff by default.— Same v. Anderson, claim JE6 13s ; judgment for plaintiff for amount of claim and costs. — Palmer v. Marrar,claim .£14 155. Mr Ritchie for plaintiff, Mr Donnelly for defendant. Plaintiff claimed for ploughing and harrowing several times eight and a half acres of land, so as to prepare it for a potato crop ; for disc harrowing the land 30s, and 10a for the use of a cow lent by the plaintiff to the defendant, Two witnesses Bwore that the work was well done, considering the dry season, and the fact that the previousploughing had turned in a lot of twitch grass. Defendant stated that the work had been badly done, as square blocks of twitch grass sods lay all over the ground. The seed potatoes also were not properly ploughed in. Plaintiff did not disc harrow the land at defendant's request, and therefore could not charge the 30s outside the contract. He also swore that only seven acres and a half were ploughed, and that the other acre was represented by headland. Judgment for plaintiff for £13 5s and costs. — Dicken v Buddie (as trustee in estate of H. J. Milsom), claim £Q 2s. Mr Martin for plaintiff, Mr Lane for defendant. Plaintiff, an auctioneer, claimed for an account for advertising a section at Waikari for sale. The section numbered one hundred and fifty acres, and plaintiff said that he was instructed to sell the land at £3 per acre, and charge five per cent on this, half of which, was to go to the Trustees. He called upon defendant to pay the account for advertising the estate, but he refused. The Bection waß not sold by plaintiff, who received from defendant £o 5s on account of commission due. — . Jennings, previously clerk to plaintiff, swore that when the £5 5a was paid, the question was raised as to how much was owing for the advertising, and he replied that if a mistake had been made it would be put right. Mr Lane moved for a nonsuit on the ground that both trustees should have been sued. Defendant swore that he paid the £5 5s in consideration of the trouble that plaintiff had gone to in the matter, and to cover expenses. Plaintiff, he afterwards found, had exceeded his instructions as to advertising. 2£ per cent on the amount of the sale would have been £10 10s. Judgment for plaintiff for amount of claim, less the usual discount, or JJ4 3s and costs. Stranaghan v, Kelly, claim £11. Mr Rusßell for plaintiff ; Mr Byrne for defendant. Plaintiff claimed for balance of money lent to defendant, and interest due, under a deed by which defendant agreed to pay his creditors out of his salary, reserving to himself the sum of £9 13s 4d a month for the support of his family. There was a subsequent agreement made, by which the other creditors agreed to take 10s in the £, part ofwhichwaa since paid. After hearing evidence in the case, the Bench nonsuited the plaintiff.— Harrop and Wigg v. Stonyer and Flahavan, claim £9. Mr Stringer for plaintiff. The claim was for a culvert put down ab New Brighton. Stonyer consented to the claim, and judgment was entered up against the other defendant, against whom the debt was proved.