RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume I, Issue 227, 30 September 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

FIiIDAY, SEPT. 30,

[Before Thomas Beekbarn, Esq., R.M.J H s Worship took hi 3 seat on the Bench at half-past ten o'clock

Judgments fob Plaintiffs. —verdicts were given for plaintiffs in the following cases •—Christopher v. Wallnutt, £6 2s. 2d., for goods : Marshall v. Mary 8. Rattray, £15 7s. Gd., professional services ; Wilson v. Hand in-Hand Gold Mining Company, £20; A. Thome v. H. Becker, £1 4s. 7d., goods; Burnside v. Pride of Erin Gold Mining Company, £11 ss. 10d., salary ; Burnside v. Cape of Good Hope Gold Mining Company, £17 3s.

Defended Causes.

Clayton V. Muliailey.—Cluini £2 3s. —Mr. Brookfield appeared on behalf of the plaintiff.—Defendant admitted the claim, but put in a set-off, part of which, being unliquidated damages, was not allowed by plaintiffs. — Defendant proceeded to prove the set off to the amount of £3 2*. —Alter hearing the evidence, judgment was given for the plaintiff. A. Thorxe y. A. F. P. Jlutchins.—Claim £1 Is, for goods.—Mr. W. Thome appeared Cor plaintiff. —The defence was that the goods were supplied to a company, and not to defendant personally. —Judgment for plaintiff. E. B. Edwards v. Wm. Smith. —Claim til 11s. 6d., for an hotel bill.—Mr. Wilson for the plaintiff ; Mr. Wynn for the defendant, whose plea was "infancy."— Mr. Wynn stated that the defendant believed £10 11s. 6d. was all that was due; and even if the defendiint substantiated his plea of infancy we would pay the £10 11s. Gd. immediately upon tlie rising of the < 'ourt. —Upon this statement, Mr. Wilson withdrew the case, and a nonsuit was recorded.

Robert Thompson v. George Owen.— Claim, £20 damages for the destruction of a dog. — Mr. Wjnn for the plaintiff; Mr. Weston for the defendant.—The plaintiff deposed that he resided at Otahuhu, and was a farmer. A short time ago lie owned a sheepdog ; it was a Scotch collie, and six years' old. He was well trained. Witness hud had from a pup, and he was a very valuable animal. He would not worry cattle, nor was he a savage clog. I hat dog had been destroyer!, and he hud been unable to replace him. £20 would not be more thim a fair compensation for that dog. Was in the Waikato when he received information that the clog was shot. Afterwards saw the defendant, when he "admitted shooting the dog, but suid he hiid done so accidentally. — The defence was that the dog had been shot accidentally, and 'lint lie was nob so valuable as the plaintiff had tried to make out.. —Very contradictory evidence was given as to the value of the dog.—The Court gave judgment for the plaintiff for the sum of £10 and costs.

This was all the business