RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 1326, 22 December 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, December 21.

(Before G. G. FitzGerald, Esq., R.M.) There were no police cases whatever before the Bench.

CIVIL CASES.

Larpent v. Hall. — This was an action to recover the sum of £7 3s Gd. Mr South appeared for defendaut, and admitted a portion of the amount. As there appeared to be some difficulty about the items, the case was adjourned to this moruiug. Upjohn v. D unbar. — This was an action to recover the sum of £1 Bs. Mr. Harvey appeared for the defendaut, and admitted that a sum of mouey had been collected, and so far as the gross stun paid over .was concerned he would also admit. The plaintiff examined by Mr Harvey, said — I Grave Mr Duubar a list of accounts to collect. Some of them I received, and some of the others have not yet been collected. I, have not allowed him commission on the amounts I received, nor yet on those uncollected. The defendant had called upon him and asked him (witness) for some accounts to collect, which he (defendant) said he would do at the rate of five per cent, on all moneys collected. Mr Harvey said the defendant's case was simply that a number of accounts had been given to him by plaintiff for collection, and that there was no understanding thj»t the defendant was to receive commission on the amount actually collected. He would call evidence to prove that such was not the custom. Defendant examined, said — The agreement was five per cent. There was nothing said about charging for the actual sums collected. The custom is for collectors to charge for the full amount. I can prove that a certain sum paid was due to my agency. The per centage on uncoliected accounts is two a half per cent. The plantiff examined the witness, but it went for nothing as regards the merits of the case. Mr Wilkinson examined, said — The custom was that all suras collected were charged for at five per cent, uncollected at two and a half per cent. Thomas Brown examined, said — He had called on all the persons whose names were on the list. Witness was clerk to defendant. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for 3s 6d ; the costs to go with the judgment.

Moore v. Morrissy. — This was an action to recover the sum of £2 ss. The plaintiff had been cook in defendant's house, and the amount charged was for wages due and a week's notice. Defendant proved that plaintiff had engaged for two months, aud had left before her time. There had been nothing said about a week's notice. Judgment was for the defendant.

Kortegast v. Colquhon. — An action to recover the sura of £2 15s 6d. Defendant admitted the debt, and said he had offered to p_y the amount. Plaintiff said the reason he refused the amount was that defendant had refused to pay the coats. His Worship said it was sufficient, supposing that the money had been offered before the summons had reached defendant, and it was proved, on reference to the bailiff, that the summons had not reached defendant until the day after the amount had been so offered. Judgment was entered by conseut. Leichbcrgcn v. O'Farrell. — This was an action to recover iJ2 -is Gd for board. There was a dispute between the parties as to the items of account, which were extremely complicated, and involved a question as to whether the plaintiff had nursed the defendant. This it was proved she had not done, and judgment was entered for the plaintiff for 4s 6d. Orr and Company v. Lunston.— An notion to recover the sum of £16 13s 7d, This (5380 waa merely a question of accounts, Tho defendant vM Hurt pJaiutUT had scut him (tyoou&t* whioa jdidgftof

correspond with the amount for which he had been summoned. The plaintiff stated that the difference was caused by errors and omissions which "had been discovered at the time the present statements of accounts had been made out. Judgment was entered for plaintiff. Orr v. Connon — This was an action to recover the sum of £10 17s 9d. Defendant said that this was a party concern, and that he had paid his share, and had brought the man who owed the money now sued for to plaintiff, who had accepted his promise to pay. His Worship said that each person in a firm was held liable. Judgment was entered for plaintiff. South v. Cullen. — This was an action to recover £9 2s 2d, for professional costs. Plaintiff was proceeding to open his case, when the Magistrate said that he did not consider an action would lie for charges incurred in an insolvency case. lie was of opinion that the plaintiff could not recover. After some argument, his Worship decided to give judgment, but it would be merely judgment in name. The plaintiff could, of course, go to the Insolvency Court for his remedy. Hill and Beck v. O'Brien. — This was an action to recover £4 8s sd. Defendant did not appear, and judgment was entered by default.

The Court then adjourned until this morning.