RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 1018, 10 August 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

ASHBURTON.— To-day. (Before H. 0, S. Baddeley Esq, R.M.) Drunk and Disorderly. —John Whiteaide was brought up on remand charged with being drunk in a public place on July 25. Evidence was given by Oonatablo Daly that he found prisoner intoxicated in Oanioron street, and a fine of 5s was inflicted. Accused was further charged with having broken six panes of glass, the property of W. Berg. , He pleaded guilty and was ordered te pay a fine of LI, and damages.Ll Bs, with the alternative of 14 days, the two sentences to be cumulative. CIVIL CASES.

Guardian Co t. Edgworth.—Claim, L2 2a 6d. Mr Crisp for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs. Harrold v. Johnston. — LI. Mr Crisp for defendant. Judgment for defendant with costs. Guardian Co v. Patton, Mount Somers. Claim, L 3 ss. On the application of Mr Wilding, for the defendant, the case was adjourned for a week. Lungbeaoh Road Board v. Corrigan.— Claim, L2 7s for rates due. Defendant disputed the claim, on the ground that a netice had not been served upon him. C. 0. Fooks stated that the notice had been served upon Mary Sanderson at the house of the defendant, and produced the notice book. The defendant denied that any demand had been made, nor was the allotment of land correctly stated for which the rate was struck. His Worship asked the defendant whether he knew-, that Mary Sanderson received the notice* at his house. Defendant replied ,that he could not say. His Worship adjourned the case in order to get the evidence of Mary Sanderson. ‘ Martin v. Broker.—Claim, L 3 12s. Mr Wilding for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed.

Smith v. Taylor.—Claim, L 162 9s. A set-off was put in by the defendant Mr Wilding for plaintiff, Mr Oriep for defendant. Mr Crisp said his Worship had no jurisdiction in this case, as the claim was over LIOO. Learned counsel quoted a case from Macaasey’a “ Law Reports ” in support of his contention. Mr Wilding said that the payments on account made by the defendant reduced the claim to within the jurisdiction of the Oeurt. The question was—were the payments made on account with the knowledge of the defendant. His Worship said that he was of opinion that the sums paid were in the nature of a eetoff, and therefore he bad no jurisdiction. Mr W lding said he would apply a

mandamus. Toner v. Franz, a claim of L 22 11s 4d for goods supplied.—Mr Wilding appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Branson for defendant. Ll 9 10s 4d was paid into Court. This case, arose out ef a grain transaction, plaintiff alleging that he sold a quantity of wheat to defendant and that the latter tested every bag that was sent. The defence was that the grain contained in six of the bags was not according to: sample. —Judgment was given for the full amount claimed and costs. Smith v. Baker, claim of LUO.—Mr Wilding appeared for plaintiff and Mr Crisp for’defendant. This was a claim for commission -on the sale of property, the purchase of which plaintiff alleged he had negotiated, (he evidence of the defendant (who is at present in Southland) was taken by commission, an objection to the affidavit raised by Mr Crisp being disallowed.—Judgment was giv*en for the amount claimed, with costs. Longbeach Road Board v. Norrie, chum of L2 6a —Mr Crisp, appeared for defendant. —This was a claim for rates, which the defendant stated he had already paid. Judgment was given for the amount claimed, with the understanding that the Read Board would refund any andounts for which defendant could produce receipts. .