RESIDENT, MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Western Star, Issue 452, 11 June 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT, MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Wednesday, Ist June. (Before H. M'Cullocli, Escj., R.M.) _ i Sun Le l e v. Lee Chang.—A claim of £8 JOs 6ii. For plaintiff with Mr Russell, counsel for defendant, was not’ present when the case was called, and on learning some time afterwards that judgment had‘ been given, he applied that the case might he reheard there and then. This the Magistrate refused, stating, Ihat.coymsel anil.their clients should, he in attendahre at court at the hour notified on the summons. . On being pressed by Mr Russell, however, he consented to grant a rehearing on 22nd inst., on payment of chats by defendant. Ur Finn appeared for plaintiff. I On the case of Li Chong v. Sun Lee being called, neither party appeared. On the application of Mr Russell, the’ease was ordered to be reinstated for 22nd inst. M'Leun v. Clark. —Plaintiff claimed £1(1 on b. dishonoured promissory, note. Judgment fq&.Wie amount claimed and IPs costs.

Fleck r. M'Laughlin;—Th» was a claim for £5, but on account of informal service of summons the" Magistrate declined to hear the case. Lucre and Pollard v. Calder.—Plaintiffs contracted to cut manuka rails at 4s per 100, including clearing tracks in the bu«'- to frnMo t thein.tphe sledged oiif.: -They ;cyt sSf'.(-Xi-Aid 620 liad been taken possession of wl.cii C •' ! er to d plain tiffs to knock off, as the ground was -too soft to allow the rails to be taken out of the bush. They were also set to work to cut -tracks, for which they claimed £5 15s.—Defendant (foiv-whom. Mr-Russell. appeared), pleaded that the rails wore bad lengths, and •that 1 tb6 (.racks were 'so- bad that the rails not he taken- out of the bush,- They varied m lengtlTfrom. 8?t to of being exactly 9ft. - ■ Plaihiiff sihnly ‘ worked a day and half-at-a special track,jmd .there .was no : -pav ,extra r fpr thp-._tracks.-Paid fariLaccbun't §F. Liiere?—Vepdifet ws.r; ’! given for £2 14s lOd, less £2 paid on Lucre’s account. Mr Finri'ripp , 'afed f«f plaintiffs. for ' removal of water Tank frorh'a building pujrohasod. by Finn and Russell appPUffid for plaintiff and defendant respectively. The case had been before the cojvt on two previous! occasions, when plaintiff was nonsuited, 'The yrero that Tluchanan bought the building known as the (jh'ilrclvbf England parsonage, and at the: time of the salfGherk* was anrirourwalevitank attached-Vo fhe biiildi’rtg.'! The tank; was snpplied to the order of the -Rev. -Mf-Ash some years agk, but 4lie vestry refused o* was urable; to i pay for same, and when (he building-was about to be sold ‘they• advisedhßobinson -to - ’ remove the t ank before the day of>the sale/ asj the vestry was not in a position to pay ifar iti; Robinson, however, did-not-remove the tank nritil.aftof tha%ale; aSid'Buehanam thpt. he purchased it along with the house. After heaving Some evidence upon thejaubject, the,Magistrate field that_ the .tank was*the property of Robinson, andfgave judgment for defendant,' r!! - ; ">-• -A