BESIDES! MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Cromwell Argus, Volume IV, Issue 202, 23 September 1873, Page 7

BESIDES! MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TUUrsday, September Ifl, (Before W. Laxbrcnce Simmon, Usq., R.M.) C. ColOlOugh v. E. Murrell.—This was a Case reserved for decision from last Court-day. hiis Worship Said, oil Consideration of the evidence, that it appeared to him the plaintiff’s Case broke down On two points. First, there was no proof of presentation ; and secondly) there was ho notification of dishonour. The first point was one which it Was perhaps rather sharp practice on part of defendant to take advantage of ; however, it had been taken, and he must notice it. .Regarding the second point, that there was no notification of dishonour, he had no evidence to show that there had been a notification which he eonld recognise. Plaintiff has handed in copy of a letter sent to defendant, but he Will not say when it was given, but sayS it might have been within ten days. Teh days was not a reasonable time, when all the parties lived in the same town, to give such notice, as defendant might plead that such a length of time spoiled his chance of recovering the amount from the original acceptor of the bill. Judgment therefore for defendant. Mr Colclough said he would apply for a rehearing, W. H. Whetter v. Peter Maher.— Claim of £1 10s., for boots supplied. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff. G, Partridges. J. Werner. Claim of £1 55., for damages done to fence and crops by defendant’s horse. Defendant admitted trespass, but defended himself on the ground that the fence round plaintiff’s paddock was not sufficiently Substantial to keep horses and cattle oUt. Judg* Snent was given for one shilling damages, and Costs of Court.