MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2073, 26 February 1889, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

METHVBN— MONDAY.

(Before Messrs Chapman and Cameron, " J P.'b.) OIYIL OASES,

Boose v Manuel.— Judgment by default for £1 0a 6d and costs.

Patton v Smart.— Jadgment by default for amount claimed, £6 15a, and ooats. Oarpendale v MoOranor. — Mr Outhbert* son for defendant.— This was a claim for £14 10a, being £13 for the prloa of a horse purchased by plaintiff from defendant, and whloh defendant had failed to deliver, and £5 for damages for wrongful detention, less a oredit of £3 10a for chaff supplied. —After hearing the evidence of both parties, Mr Oathbertson asked for a nonBuit on the ground that the evidenoe went to show that any oontraot that had been entered into for the sale and purchase of the horse had been amoelled by mutual agreement.— The Benoh held with Mr Outhbertson, and nonsuited the plaintiff with costs.

Patton v Larklo. — Mr Catbbertaon for defendant.— This was a claim for board and lodgings, extending as far baok as December, 1886 — Mr Qqthbertson called evldenoo to •how that the defendant bad been absent. 'from Methven during the dates on which sertaln Items were charged m the par tlculara.— Judgment for 4*l J9a without costs.

Caiman v Graham.. Mr Outhbertaon for defendant— ln thin one the plaintiff •ought Jo recover £1 5a 5d for wages dae for harvesting. The defence was that the plalotlfl had been engaged to work for the defendant till the completion of a oontvaot which he had taken at Messrs Gould and Cameron's, and had left wlthoat notice, Mr Oathberteon moved for a nonsuit on thlt ground.-— The Benoh were of oplolon thftt the plaintiff had falle 4ty c»:ty oat his agreement, » Q d wmStib bin with 9°ttlt - *** **