MAGISTERIAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7720, 1 June 1903, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHUROH. Monday, Junk 1. (Before Mr W. R. Haselden, 0.M.) Civil Cases.— -In the following cases the defendants did nob appear, ana judgment was given for plaintiffs by default, with costs : — Joseph Maddison v. John T. Smith, claim £9; C Palafret and"G. Harris (assignees of Drs Ovemden and Palmer) v. Mrs Sutton, 15b; same v. J. L. Badcliffe, £2 10s j same v. J. M'Clelland, £26 8s ; same v. Whitesido, £2 17s ; same v. Tipping, £2 12s 6d; same v. J. Davis, £1 11s 6d ; came v. J. Johnston, £1 19s 6d ; same v. Charles Haynes, £1 12s 6d j same v. J. S. Ingram, £9 19s 6d ; same v. John Seaton, £4 4s ; same v. W. H. Morton, '£17 lls ; J. Cassidy v. Thomas and Louise Marriott, £20.

Tub Impoundino Act.— William Bennett (Mr Leathern) v. Arthur Bearman (Mr Beattie),, claim 10s. . # The plaintiff claimed in respecfc to damage done to ibis oat crop by v tho defendant's wandering horses, which had broken through his fence. The defence was that the fence was not a legal or fltook-proof fence. Judgment was given for defendant. The defendant now brought a cross-action for £1 5s against Bennett. The olaim was that' a horse had been impounded 1 by defendant, who*had been called upon to pay 25s for trespass rates and 6s for poundage before tho animal could be released. The fact that the plaintiff had not lodged written protest at. the time of paying the amount released the 'poundkeeper from liability in the matter, .and he having- paid tho trespass money over to the defendant that party was now proceeded against for its recovery. The case for the plaintiff wa* that the fence enclosing de--jeudant's paddock, wheii the trespass, was alleged to have occurred, was nob a. legal fence. Mr Haselden, in giving judgment for the defendant, said that the case had been lost on account of the absence of.evi-' dence of fact. .

CpNFiiiCTiNa Testimony.— Harry E. Boardman v. Bhoda Tomline (Mr Bitchie) claim £2 10s, The claim was that the. defendant had placed certain debts in the hands of the plaintiff, who was a, bailiff, for collection, and signed an agreement, undertaking to give hdm a portion of the bad debt as remuneration for his trouble. The agreement had since been lost, and the money having been colt leoted. the action was brought to recover plaintiff's commission. In defence it wag stated' that the account had been placed in Boardman's hands for collection cm commission, and the 10 per cent owing taajm had, been paid into Court. The debt hail b«en owjhjy about two years, and Boitrdman had not appeared to have taken any trouble at all in the matter. Finally defendant herself collected the money, and Boardman, hearing of this, immediately presented a. claim for his share. Mrs Toinlina positively denied that she had ever signed en agreement undertaking to pay B&jurdmftn any thing in respect to the colJection of the debt. • Boardman, ' and' his wjtneesi Bennetts, ivho had both sworn to her^having signed the document, were telling falsehoods. She maintained her story ■ through a searching cross-examination. His Worship, sending Bennetts' outside theCourt, then interrogated Boardman 'as to the circumstances surrounding the signing, of the paper, and then called; in Bennetts and heard his description. Neither were shaken in their testimony, and his Worship, in giving judgment, said the onus of proof rested with ••tn'e plaintiff. Judgment would be for plaintiff for the amount paid into > Cwrtj ias £ he t«? fflrti&Goaxt) costa^