MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2325, 10 January 1890, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBUK rON-THURSDAy.

(Before Mr O. A. Wray, R.M. and Mr O'Shea Lawlor J.P.) OIVIIi OASES.

Bond vJ. Fitzgerald and others, claim £14 17a 8d Mr Purnell for plaint fE, \ir Ctisp for defendants, Nellan end Oaeey. Fitzgerald did not appear and i was slated that be had chared out soma tima ago after lift n.^ the mo7iey for the contract on which be w* ihi ds'enrUnts were engaged —The plaiui, lThsving given evidence was cross-examined by Mr Crisp at considerable length with a view to elicit that be had locked to Fitzgerald solely for payment,—Mrs Bond gavo corroborative evidence— R. M, Oathbeitson stated what took place at an interview between the plain i iff, and Oasey «nd Neil an.—Mr Otisp opened tbe oase for the defence and called iiichard Nellan who denied that he and o*Bry had been in partnership with Fitzgerald. They were working for him, and the goodß were obtained on his account. Until Fi zgerald had oleared out witness and Oasey were never acked for payment. It was tbe usual cuitom for the contractor to deduot each man's share of tbe goodsacoonat fr>m his wages; bu th-y bad net received any wages from Fitzgerald.—By Mr Purnell: Witoess never told Bond tha he was in patne ship with Fitzgerald, Witness thought that he was in partnership until Fitagerald bolted. At that time he expected that he, Oasey and Fitzgerald would settle the account between them. The arrangement was that the expsnsas should be defrayed out of the proceeds of the oontraot and the balance devided amoug them.--Oaßey said that Fitzgerald was responsible.—Tbo Bench gave judgment In respect to the goods supplied to the camp at which Neilan and Oasey htd been working, the amouat being £8 6s Id.

f. and R. Morgan v Turnbull, claim £11 2s 53. Mr Octhbeitaon for plaint ff, Mr O >re" ifoc the defendant. Part of the oUim ~waa on account olt a dishonored cheque. This had been drawn by a third person, and paid to the defendant, who, without endorsing It, had giver* It to the plaintiff. Mf Core submitted that defendant not,havlng endorsed the cheque, an aotlon against him did not lie- The Magistrate reserved his deolaloa on the point lulled. Evidence having been taken the easa was adjourned for a week, the Magistrate expressing a hope that it would be settled la the meantime. Aihbmioa County Ooanoil v Thomas Jones, olilm £119j 61. Mr Parnell for the plaintiffs. The claim was for expenses incurred in clearing oat a watee race cunning through property occupied by tbe defendant The clscumbtauoes of the o«se were somewhat peouiiar. It appeared that enclosed in one of defendant's p»ddocks was a small section which did not belong to him. This fact had not been dla oovered till reotnily, defendant has oooupled the land and paid rates on it for years, believing it to ba his property. Part of the water cetoe ran through this section and defendant objected to psy for tbe bteantag on the groand that the laud was not hja, Evidence was led to show that the race had been cleaned at defendant's request t>nd that he had made use of the small section, Mx Puraell sobmlttefl that defendant was liable ts ocoopier, and tbe Bench sgroelDg with this view gava judgment for tbe Oouuoll P. Graoe vJ. R. Corrtgsn, claim £11 19i8d. Mr Com for plaintiff, MrOuthbtrteon for defendant. Judgment for plaintiff fcr £2 9j 9d. Execution w»a ordered to be stayed for a week' to silow of a c:Oss aotiou being taken, ' I The Court then rose.