MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2250, 11 October 1889, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL .

ASH BURTON — T il U RSD AY

(Before Mr 0. A. W>ay, R.M.) CIVIL OASES

Tho f .Howlog Is tba remainder of our ■epott of yesterday's eft Ing :— 0. Smlthell vE, MoSweeney, c'alm £2 2.6d. Mr Orlep for plaintiff, Me W.ldlng for defendant The claim was for work done to connection with the election of a house for defendant. Judgment for plal itifi with ooats. J. 11. Oorrlgm v Wm. Altkeo jr., oUlra £6 Mr Crisp for plaintiff, Mr Oathber son for defend mt, The case for tha p'alntiff was that some time ago be obtained judgment against one B<mual Thoaip.on. In part fa infactlon of this judgment Thompson gave an order for £6 on 4.ltkeu for whom he waa then working. Plaint ff had previously lntervluwed Altken who h*d given bis verbal consent to pay tho order when presented. Plaintiff presented the order to Aiiken bat it had not yet been paid, defendant giving as a reason that Thompson, who had at this lime got Into trouble for larceny, might draw for all the money owing to bias for logal expenses. Defendant sild that he h*d told Oonigan that he would n t honor Thompson's order, unless the latter had money oomlng to him. When Oorrlgan presented the order witness said that there waa no money due to Thompson, that In fact Thompson was n witness's debt, Ojrrlgan refused to take the order baok, telling witness to keep ( lt till Thompson was Id funds, He had in no way accepted any responaibil ty ou account of the order, — Tne Magistrate said that ho was aatiefiad that there was no acceptance of the order, and Mr Orfnp elected to t&ke a non-aalt.

Jds McOreqor v T. Matheson, claim £30 15s. Mr Wilding for plaintiff, Mr Cuthbertson for defendant. The oaße was adjourned for a fortnight in or iec to allow of a oroan-HOtioQ being brought G. Hitohings v T. Hoult and wife, olaim £4 frr wages Mr Outhbertaon for plaintiff, Tha plaintiff was la tho employ of Hoult and when tbe latter file! oontinued in the employment of Mm Hoult for a few weeks Certain money was paid him which plaintiff alleged was on acoount of his work for Hoult, but which defendants said was in fall settlement of tbe work done for Mrs Hoult, they not having been in a position to pay the amount incurred prior to Hoult's bankruptcy. The Magistrate said that from tho faots addooed in evidence it appeared that the amount incurred since the bankruptcy had been paid. He would therefore hive to nonsuit the plaintiff. The Oourt then ros ?,