MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2114, 20 April 1889, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBORTQN— THURSDAY.

(Before Mr O» A. Wrayß.M.)

R, Gallowty v G. Pocock, olalm £85. Mr OaygHl for plaintiff, Mr Oathbertson for : defendant.— The claim was one for damages for breach of performance of oontraot. Plaintiff rented twenty aores land to defendant, who wia to lay it down m turnips, and afterwards Id wheat, delivering the straw to plaintifl. It was mutually arranged, subsequent to the agreement being signed, that defendant should enbatltnte a crop of oata for wheat. Defendant had, taken the crop off, but had refused to delived the straw to plaintiff, — Dafend&nt said that when the oati were put m plaintiff agreed that a few loads of straw would be sufficient for him. After a good deal of evideooa had bean taken judgment was given for £3 15j aud aoiti. Jas. Oarlone v J. McOrenor, olalm £5 4s. Mr Wilding for plaintiff Mr Crisp for defendant. — The claim was for . labor done, and defendant had paid the amount of £3 10j Into Oourt. Judgment was given for plaintiff foe £1 la excess of the amount paid into Oourt,

Robert Hunter vT. Matheion, olalm £66. Mr Wilding for plaintiff, Mr Orlip for defendant.— The claim was for wages, and defendant eet off a number of items, whloh he alleged he had paid on aooonnt of plaintiff. Defendant also disputed the rate of wages at whioh plaintiff stated he had been engßged,

A quantity of evidence of a very contradictory character having been taken, the Magistrate gave judgment for plaintiff for £81 6a 9d and cob to.

J, U, Bsll v David Wilson and E. G Crisp, claim £10 43, Mr Oathbertson appeorod for the plaintiff, who In hia capacity as Deputy Official A&signett m the bankrnpc estate of J*b. Graham, wai anlnp defendants for the recovery of certain money In connection with the estate, Mr Wilding for Mr D. Wlkon, one of the defendants, and Mr Parnell for Mr Orlop, the other defendant. Owing to the late hour, only the evldenoe of Jas. Graham was taken. From his statement It appeared that he had given a bill of sale to Mr Wilson, who afterwards realised upon it. When the bill of sale and expenses had been patd there was • snrploß left, and It was alleged that Mr Crisp, who was aotlng for Mr Wilson, handed ovei the surplus to another oreditcr without Graham's authority. II was aleo stated that Mt Wilson's authority had not been given, but it had been thought necessary to join him m the suit. Graham shortly afterwards filed, and the Assignee wsb now suing for the recovery of the surplus from the sale. Whan Graham's evidence snd that of Mr D, Wihon had been taken th Court adj 'uraed.