Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, February 20, 1873. (Before W. Lawrence Simpson, £V/,, 11M.) C. Colclough v. T. Hudson.—Claim, ±'29 10s for rent, use, and occupation of a building at Carrickton. The claim was based upon a written agreement made between the parties.—Defendant's solicitor (Mr Allanby) put in a formal plea of "Not indebted."--Mr'Wilson, counsol for plaintiff, stated that the present case was an outcrop of the litigation of the previous week between the same parties. In October 1871 the plaintiff entered into an agreement with Hudson whereby the latter was to remove f-..mi Bendigo to Carrickton a building belonging to plaintiff, The purchase-money (£100) was to be paid by instalments, and defendant was to pay rent so long as the purchase-money remained unpaid, the amount of rent being reduced -.pro rata as the instalments were paid. A few weeks aW, the bailiff, armed with a distress-warrant issued at the instance of C. & W. Colclough (in liquidation), seized and sold the building. Plaintiff, who was the purchaser, afterwards Lund he could not compel defendant to give up possession, because the latter held the site under a business license. The whole amount paid by the defendant, by virtue of the agreement before mentioned, on account of the purchase-money, was £l4 ; and plaintiff now sued for balance of rent due up to a certain date.—C. Colclough, the plaintiff, sworn : 1 have received for rent*of the building in question sums amounting to £2'j 10s. As I could not establish the sale of the building to myself by the bailiff, defendant is still in possession under the agreement.—Crossexamined : I want to get possession of the building.—For the defence, Mr Allanby said that his cbent admitted there was money owing to plaintiff, but he submitted that the whole" sum paid by defendant was paid on. account of the pni : chase-money, and not on account of rent. The plaintiff he aiguod, had no right to recover reut for property tha : - had } assed out of his hands by sale to the defendant.—l lis Wor hip said the payment of the £l4 gave defendant a power of purclrse, undoubted]v. All j a/motifs made subsequently to the first instalment of in mey should have been for interest, and not for reut. How could the plaintiff's c unsU get over th i difficulty about thr-. property hav nz pa sed out of his client's possession ? -Mr \\ ilson maintained that the property had n -t passed out of plaintiff's hands, lie was n>t prepared, however, lo argue the question fully, and would ask for an adjournment to.enable him to look into thehwof the mater.—His Worship consented to an adjournment for a week. Halliday v. Be ri,y.—Claim, £l4 (ss. lOd. Judgment by default for amount, with 19s costs. HURLEY v Jaggai . "laim, £4. Judgment by default for amount, with 9s. costs. J. Harding u. \V. El-.mtt.—Claim, £l9 16s. Defendant admitted the debt, but stated that he had given plaintiff an order for the amount on the Robert Burns Company for wages owing, which order had not been paid, and" therefore the p'aintiff had summoned him. Judgment for amount claimed, with 28s. costs added. Elliott v. Colclough. (as manager.of Robert Burns Q, M. Co.. Registered).—* laim, £2O l?s. Gd. for wages. Defendant pleaded not indent*.d. In de encb. he stated that the plaintiff had given other orders [besides that given to Hard'ng as stated in the foregoing case] .'mounting to within 6s. 6d. of the sum to him. The Company had arranged with Short for payment of i'he orders given to him ; but there Ileitis a dispute between Mar ling an 1 Short as to who is landland of the Reefers' Arms ho el, liaiding had sued Elliott, for the amount of his 1 ill. Plaii.tiff admitted the cuT'Ctuess of defendant's statement ; and in order to obtain the evidence of Short, his Worship adjourned the hearing for a week. At the suggestion of the Magistrate, Elliott appliel for a rehearing of the case in which judgment had been given." aiainst him. Gran led. Transfer' op License. \ temporary transfer of the license held by John Wrightson for the Sluicers' Arms, Krtwarau 00-ge v was gran'el to Anders Olson.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CROMARG18730225.2.10

Bibliographic details

Cromwell Argus, Volume IV, Issue 172, 25 February 1873, Page 5

Word Count
693

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Cromwell Argus, Volume IV, Issue 172, 25 February 1873, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Cromwell Argus, Volume IV, Issue 172, 25 February 1873, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert