RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Western Star, Issue 946, 9 May 1885, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

■Wednesday, 6th Mat. (Before H. McCulloch, Esq., R.M.) Pnrdner v. Ferguson.—Judgment summons claim of £Bl2s lOd. No appearance of SEa»U be paid forthwith, costs 8s; in rinfanlt 14 days' imprisonment. Sertson Bros. v. Stirling.-Judgment *J££S£ of £3 6s 3d T. be paid forthwith, costs 8s; in default one weeks lm ß°Zn Bros.v. H. Barry.-Claim £ll osßd. For plaintiffs, costs 19s. Jones v. Redmond.—Claim £ . Ao aDDoarsnce of either party. Struck out. Chnn King v. Bates.—Judgment summons claim of £5 2s Bd. Mr O'Reilly for plaintiff, for whom judgment was given, costs 12s; in default one week's imprisonment. ; McKenzie v. V. Howell.—Claim, £4 ss, for bueev hire. Judgment for plaintiff, costs £1 Os 6d. Mr O'Beilly for plaintiff. Woolf v. T. Howell. —Judgme t summons claim of £2 10s 6i. To'.be paid forthwith costs ss; in default one week's imprisonment. Price v. Lennard.—Claim, £B. No appearance of either party. Struck out. Groves v.Cowie.— Judgment summons claim of £4 16» 4d. To be paid forthwith, costs 8s ; id default 10 day's imprisonment. Mr O'Beilly for plaintiff. Simpson v. Mrs C. Howell.—Mr O'Reilly for plaintiff; Mr Finn for defendant, who pleaded no liability. Plaintiff, who w-i» formerly in business as a livery stuble keeper and general carrier, claimed £6 Is 6d for buggy hire, cartage, &c., and gave evidence to the effect that the account commenced in September 1883. Went to defendant's house in Ju y last and asked ft* payment of tho account, when she promisea to settle it September following. The ''traps" and h-rses were hired by some of the members of defendant's family sending down tor then.. Mrs Howell promised to pay the Bccount and instructed plaintiff to send it in to Mr Finn. Had dealing* with defendant for the past eight veats aad had been paid similar ace units without demur.— By Mr Finn: lam not aware that Mm Howell was bankrupt in 1883. Defendant never said that she would not pay me. Finn : Why did you not send your bill fa the proper pereon, when you would have aot your money ?—Witness replied that he did w bo hsd done on P re y iouß occasions. Defendant never previously paid me for "trap" hire, but for carting. Did not carry on the U Ta ry business previously. When a message was sent down, a trap or horses were sent up to the house; did not know which particular member of the' family ordend them.-J. McKenzie, formerly in the employ rf planviff, stated that when an order came from defendant'a house a trap was sent up and one ef tha family took it.—This was plaintiff's case.— For the defeace Mr Finn said defendant never authorised the hiring of traps and horses. She had paid them on previous occasions, but it mutt be stopped somewhere. At the time plaintiff's debt was incurred Mrs Howrll was a bankrupt, and a member of the family was in receipt of an allowance from the trustees to keep the house. He called defendant, who deposed that she never promised to pay plaintiff's account; never authorised the hiring of the buggies and horses; did not tell Simpson to fend the account to her, on the contrary, she always objected to it. Knew nothing at all about the claim. Never employed defendant to crt parcels from the station or do any other work. —-By Mr O'Reilly: 1 never paid debts incurred by the children; the ttustees paid tbem. When I wanted a trap for myself I ' sent for it. Did not pay Simpson an account for £2Us in August, 1883. Know nothing about wood having been carted from my yard to my brotber's.-Mr O'Reilly re-called plaintiff who swore that in August, 1883, defendant paid him £2 Us in cash, in the street-Mr O'Reilly stated the law with regard to the responsibility of persons in a similar position to plaintiff for goods ordered, contending t'mt the fact of her paying previous accounts for goods ordered in the same way as those winch ■tin now disputed rendered her liable m absence of a ,7otice P disclaiming liability.-Mr Finn noinf ed out that there was no trap or horse hire f„ the accounts that plaintiff had been pre-viouslypaid.-The Magistrate did not think the trap iiire could be recovered, but there were some of the other items that defendant washable for—At this stage, on the suggestion. nf m- Finn, who promised that the account, would bs paM, Mr O'Reilly accepted a nonsuit without costs.