RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 1072, 12 October 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

ASHBURTON — To-day.

(Before H. 0. S, Baddeley Esq, R.M.)

Ivess v. Knight, claim of L 4 for the rent of paddock.—Mr Wilding appeared for plaintiff.—The claim was practically undefended, and judgment was-given for the amount claimed.. Wilkin and Carter v. Reid, claim of Lls.—Mr Purnell appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr Cayglll for defendant. This claim was for rent of a store at Tinwald, which was let to defendant. —Mr Carter gave evidence F that the conditions under which the store was let were that certain repairs should be done and that in return no rent was to be charged for the first six months. Plaintiffs now sued for three months’ rent from July Ist, to October Ist. 'Mr Oaygill submitted that he was entitled to a non-suit on the ground that the plaintiffs were in occupation of the store during the three months. Mr PurrieU having replied, his Worship said that he would hear evidence for the defence. The defendant was called and deposed that he only took the store for six months rent free on condition it was put into repair. His Worship said that he was not satisfied that the plaintiffs had made oiit their case, and judgment would be given for the defendant. Wilding v. Stephens.—ln this’ case heard last week, his Worship said he would give judgment for the plaintiff in the case ot the younger Stephens, but would enter a non-suit in favor of the elder defendant. His Worship made an order to compel Stephens jun. lo pay the amount claimed in monthly iasWmpnts of L2.

Perryman v. Toner, claim of L 3 10s for a pair of wheels alleged to have been sold to defendant. Mr Wilding appeared for defendant, and evidence went to show that the wheals in question were alleged to be dray wheals, but they were useless for the purpose for which they were bought. The wheels had been returned to plaintiff but not accepted.—Judgment was given for defendant. Crum v. Toomoy, claim of L 6 10s, for building a chimney to a house be’onging to defendant. —Mr Wilding appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Crisp for defendant.— Evidence was led for the plaintiff to show that the work was done to defendant’s order, and was altogether separate from the contract entered into with Hitchens to build the house. For the defence it was argued that the chimney was included in Hitchens’s contiact, and that the latter was the person who was liable and not the present defendant. Several witnesses were examined as to a conversatio n which took place between Crum and Toomoy. when the latter told plaintiff that if Hitchens threw up the contract, Crum would be employei to build the chimney, •ut otherwise he wou’d have to look to Hitchens for payment. After counsel on. both sides had addressed the Court, his Worship said that the balance of the testimony was in favor of the defendant, and the plaintift would be nonsuited without costs.

Hayea v. Kiely, claim of L 8 16b on a judgment summons. Mr Caygill appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Crisp for defendant.—W. Collins, manager for the plaintiff, was called and said that he obtained judgment against Wilkie and Kiely, and that the present defendant had been in sofficient funds to liquida'e the debt, but had not done so.—Cross-examined by Mr Crisp : Was agent for Mr Hayes in Ashburton. The original summons was taken out against Kiely and Wilkie conjointly.—Mr Crisp submitted that the case must be dismissed on account of the insufficiency of description. He also contended that the authority to act for the plaintiff was bad, inasmuch as the defendant did not really know who was suing him. Counsel argued further at some length, and quoted authorities in support of the necessity to sue the partnership, and not one member.— Me Caygill submitted that he had a right to reply, but Mr Crisp objected as he had not called evidence.—After _ some discussion Mr Crisp waived his objection without prejudice, and Mr Caygill then spoke on the law points raised, -r His Worship said he would make an order for the payment of the amount within three weeks, or to be imprisoned for four weeks. Compton v. Brown, claim of Lloo. Mr Wilding appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Crisp for defendant.—Mr Wilding said that this was a case brought some time ago when judgment went by default, and the money was paid into Court, and allowed to remain there until the case was re-heard. Counsel then went on to state the facts of the case, which have already been reported. The following evidence was then • called : Sergeant Felton said that-in June 1882, there was one licensed house in. Methven, and in June, J 833, two licenses were granted. Witness would have recommended Mr Compton as a fit person to have a license, Cross-examined : Would have

objected to a license being issued to J. Brown. Knew the premises which were the subject of this action, and they were not suitable for a licensed house, being somewhat similar to Bullock’s horse bazaar. Witness knew nothing about an agreement between Compton and Brown concerning a license. In June last would not have supported more than one application. Rowsa was granted a license last June, and witness him. Thera had been no material alteration in the building of Comptons from when it was first built.—F. Ferriman, commission and land agent, said that the property was put in his hands by defendant, and it was let by witness to Mr Cookson who was in possession of the place soma months. — Cross-examined; Could not say when Cookscn wont in, nor when he left. He occupied the premises temporarily. [Left sitting.]