R.M.Court.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 7250, 27 October 1890, Page 3

R.M.Court.

(Before W.H. Brabant, Esq., R.M.) Monday, Ocioiieb, 20m.

UNDErBNDED OASES.

M. Riordan v Mrs Grogan, claim £8 3s 4d. Mr Watt appeared for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff by default with costs 10s, solicitor's fee 21s.

G. Hutchison v Horatio Waka, claim £2, Judgment for plaintiff with costs 11s.

DEFENDED CASBS.

Nicholson and another v J. Bennio.

After reviewing the evidence at length His Worship considered that plaintiffs had failed to prove their case, and judgment would therefore go for tho defendant. He considered it would be hard for the defendant to boar plaintiff's loss as woll as his own. Mr Hutchison asked for a non-suit, but Mr Barnicoat objected. His Worship decided to adhere to his judgment. Mr Hutchison said the cose would certainly be brought on again.

S. Wright v Keith and Lennard.

Mr Marshall appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Hogg for defendants. This was a claim for depasturing horses. The dates were practically admitted and the only point then was whether tho charge'for this should be Jsor2s Cd per week. Mr Liffiton on being examined as to the usual rate considered 2s 6d per week to be the ordinary charge for grazing horses in town. The account rendered was for 2s Gd per week and Mr Keith— ono of tho defendants — contended that the agreement he made with Mr Wright was for Is por week so long as the horses were in the paddock. The dates mentioned in the Bill of Particulars were correct. If the amount charged was Is instead of 2s 6d the account would be correct — £2, tho amount at this rate, hud been paid into Court by the defendants. His Worship decided that 2s Cd per week was a reasonable charge, but Mr Wright having rendered an account foraless amount under another agreement, which defendant repudiated — he could not now givo judgment for the greater amount. Judgment was therefore given for plaintiff for £3 15s Gd, oosts 9s, solicitor's fee 21s, and witness': expenses ss.