RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Cromwell Argus, Volume V, Issue 269, 24 November 1874, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, November 20, 1874. (Before. W. Lawrence Simpson, Esq., R. M.) CIVTTj oases. Macintosh v. Ross, There wa® no appearance of defendant, and affidavit of service of summons being unsatisfactory, fresh summons was ordered to issue. James MNulty v. Gnodger.—Claim, £4O, for breach of contract in failing to carryout promise to give acceptance at three months. Mr Johns ten for plaintiff j Mr Wilson for defendant. The circumstances of this case were shortly as follows M‘Unity sold Ooodger ashar ■. in claim and flume at Hearing Meg for the sum of £BO, Ooodger paying half cash, and arranging to give an acceptance at three mouths for the such acceptance to he given on condition of M'Nulty freeing the coacern of all debts due at time of sale. M‘Nulty’s mates had written to Ooodger, cautioning him against completing sale until certain debts werepaid off; and Ooodger had not yet .completed his promise to M‘Nulty, although he was quite willing to do so when he could Be as* sured that the cehts were naid. Legal argumelts were gone into at consider- ’ able length as tc the plan of bringing the action, | there being donlt as to the possibility of a fresh 1 action being broight in the Warden’s Court for' the recovery of the £4O, even if a verdict were now given for plaintiff o n the score of breach \ of contract; 'the solicitor for the plaintiff! quoted from lega authorities to show that action \ could not have possibly been brought in any j other form, and explained that no fresh action was intended to be taken in the manner suggested. The MagistratfhcM over his decision nntP the rising of the Court, when he said it seemed clear to him that the (bject of the acceptance for the balance, was to lave three months] c-e lit. He would give jndgnhnt for the plaintiff for amount claimed, but exertion would be stayed until the time when, if a Hfl hod been given on the date agreed unon, thatbill would have come due. Stephenson v. Watson.— Claim, £3 Is.' Mr Johnston for plaintiff. £2 of the claim was for lenlmnney. which Watson stated i he received nob as'a loan but as wages ; Stephen-1 son stating that the wages were duo by the I Royal Standard Company, and that Watson 1

could never-have understood anything elso The; evidence -wa.s-simply path against oath, and a verdict was given for £2 Is., the Mama, trate bolding that £1 was due to Watson°by plaintiff' for wages. James:M'Nulty v. Edward M'Multy.— Claim, £2O, for money, lent. Mr Johnston for plaintiff', the son ; Mr VV ilson for defendant, the father, This was a painful case, father and son having certainly not the most amicable feelings towards each other. The defendant admitted borrowing the £2O, but said he paid back £8 a day or two after. This plaintiff denied, stating that tho £8 was given to his mother in his presence. The defendant also put in a set-off' for £35, a money matter in some way arising out of a contract the father had in the beginning of the year for formation of portion of the Dunstan road, in which contract the father stated his son was a partner. The son denied this, and stated he received the £35 as wages, declaring positively he gave his father a receipt for the amount. The Magistrate, in giving judgment, said he could not recognise the partnership in the contract, and therefore defendant’s set-off could not he allowed. With regard to the plaintiff’s claim, of £2O, he thought an adjournment, with the view of bringing into Court the evidence of Mrs M ‘Nnlty as to the disputed £B, would be the best method of arriving at a solution of the matter. LARCENY;. Euring the sitting of the Court, a man named William Jones, a stranger, was arrested on a charge of stealing a hat, the property of Se Toy. At the conclusion of the sitting of the Warden’s Court, he was brought up that an enquiry might be m ide by the Magistrate. The circumstances were these The prisoner went into Stuart’s hotel, bothering Mr Stuart for a hat, having lost his own. Mr Stuart said he had no hat to give him. Se Toy was there, and he took the hat off his head and went awav with it. Mr Stuart was examined, and he said prisoner teok the hat openly, but as be would not return it be thought the best course to pursue was to give him in charge. The Magistrate said be would take it upon himself to dismiss the charge. The prisoner had evidently been in liquor, and though his conduct was reprehensible, still the offence hardly amounted to larceny.