RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 555, 20 October 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

i iFRIDAiY, OCTOBER 20,

[Before Thomas Becktfami Esq., •' R.M.] The usual weekly-sitting-of this Court-W-3 held this morning, when the following business; was. disposed,of,:— ', ~<\\ c-' '' : •;■'■■' •■ Baibd v. Owen,;AND Graham.—fXhis case, w'lieh had been before the Court for some time and this morning, was appointed for the delivery of His. -Worship's, -j^Ugmeafc.; j His Honor thought irwoul'd I>e nio're consistent with the feelings pf b tli: parties if J,he -cafee >vere wiLh'dra'wn—Mr. Rogan appeared for I he plaintiff. —Mr..W.eat6aifoc:i tli&-deft;indants J and said lie had no objection, except that hereafter the ;case might be ; brqughtj ;oa ftgaia and\ his client niight, not, bejn a position to. prove his defeuce.—His.'Honqpisaid ,a, condition rai«ht be tqihe effgct that no .future , eb.p,ul4 , be ;; taken. —Withdrawn: accordingly. -| i. ; : ...:■.,,.: -.:;.-.■. EwiNG^xpN ; T.,DDKE.— Cjlaim, £l : 17s. 6d.. The defendant; ad.ini.rtedijtlie ,olaini, but, Biiid he was a medical herbalist;, and Mr. Ewington's,,principal.;.owed.• him : ,|g2, jwhioh, he wi9 told lie'could not'recover. —His Honor suggested that in such circumstances the defendant should secure his payment before supplying the herbs. !b4ce r.t •s***. —ptaii^, | gudgi-, merit was confessed in "this case, and the defendaijt,agreed .-to • 2s>,6cL a. ,week, -which was accepted. JAcksoN V. CBE^B-r-Claimi,' 3lo 'ssi ~Bd. This was a proceeding upon a judgment summons.! An execution had-been'issußU-'against' the defendant's goods, but the bailiff sent to execute the warrant was told by the defendant that there; was a billvof. sale over.[the/goods: The defendant also said that he had the money * but hot pay ,it. - Judgment -fbr plaintiff," a month being given to defendant to satisfy ithe.claim..

Dll/tON T. POULTEE. —Olaiin, £6. —Mr. Thdrne1 for plaintiff 5 MiI.' JBrook for the de?

fendirit—This whs a claim for. shifting and ro-erect-ng a liouso. Tlie defence was that_thp wo k wa3 not dono to defendant's satisfaction? Plie plaintiff replieA-thafc the work could not be done in any other .manner, as the defendim gave him 01 tiers' as to the way of putt|ng up the roof. -Some ra lers were longer' than Otters. iS:> objection was made to the work uutil payinout was asked. The plaintiff, in reply to defendant's counsel, : said that lie pitted £14 to put up the building, but the defendant said he would be satisfied with the structare it' put up roughly. This wai denied upon the part of the defendant. A great deil of evidence was taken upon the effect of the weather upon the shingled roof. The work was dono by Mr. Pointer's- orders.—The plaintiu s son gave corroborative testimony.—■ ■Roberr. Vinoeat'.Rllis.'a1 practical bttilde'r, said the work was fairly done, and worth £6. " The defendant; asid the building wa9 to have been removed and re-erected in nine sections. The plaintiff's son pulled ie down wholesale. The agreement was to do the job in a workmanlike manner. The bi_, t muternjswere supplied. I'he rain camtf xnj and would ijcomp in ; tg a; .gre ,ter extent every day. ''" The-shinglei were injured.— Walrer Swift, a carpenter, said the roof was sunk seven or eight inches. The rafters extended beyond " Vl} o. plate.", T u e building miist become' more "leaky',''in a month or "two.-- The front bulge}'out." Witnrvs wor^d not like to do the work for i' 6. —Jame) Page, a carpenter, gave corroborative testimony. Th,e wir.neis ajSicTthe wu^ was worth* £6, " ugly |as the 'budding was."£Jud'ament for the plaintiff. Voqel v. H.AiwAFOfflbl.i-401aim £7 Is. lOd. —This claim wai proved by the clerk from the plaintiff's :i>fSce. The defendant'{fief not appear.— Juclgnient for the pla'ptiff; '» : • Datibs t. MdQviiEiOLE.p^Claipi £§.-*i-Mr. Xiisk '$>r th; e ; ; j|aini:ff; Mi/, Brock jtfdr- the ■defendant.—This1 was1 an action io'recover the above sum,,by way of damage puctainedjhy the misrepresentation of the"&efericta>t,' in tliede-script-on of a photographic lens sold by-defen-dant to the plainjiff. The pla;ntiff said be purchased froji the defendant what purported to be a.qutok act;onslens (Dallrrieyer;B,No. 2; B, K. ,46S0),"and"'gave £8 for it. Ultimately he discovered that the lens •was not a " Dalltneyer," Plaiptjff was certain the defendant told him the glass was a " Dallmeyer," and afterwards aduaittri it was not so. He tendered the lens to the defendant and asked lor his money back. Defendant declined to return the money. The defence was'that the lens was not sold as one by that1 maker. He lurther said that a picture was takon with the lens which was satisfactory to the plaintiff, and it was upon that t'ial Ibo purehr^e was miide. The plaintiff in the course of the crosi^xu'ninat'on said that the price of a real "Dalln'ejer" lens was £16 iv Melbourne. He did not know that wai the price when he purchased the lens in ques non'i Mr. Jouc gave corroborative testimony. ■L'he defenc'i-it said the pla:ntiff, ]V|r. Jone3, rtnd a boy, came to hi'-a |fcp purchase'a lens. Defendant suid lie had four, and produced two—one being that produced. He laid no dlieis on the came being on tho side. Told tbom that ihe name being on the side was no eilerion of the, gonuinenes; of the lens. .'A picture was taken, "wiih' which they were Sal'afed. Alter thnt the pnrchusc was made. Two ■witne'ses,' named Hayes and Corbet* (photoHi.ipheis), sad . the- lens was well (jnou^h, but it was not uncommon to put 'he naiii' ■ of celebrated makers upSn iinimtion ariic't . —His Honor thought, after' the. evidence .adduced, there was no alternative to the Courfcbut to give judgment for the plaintiff. This concluded the business on the list, and tb,a Oouit adjourned.