RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3501, 26 September 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

This Da_. (Before Captain Preece, R.M.) DRUNKENNESS. John Uoiberman and Matthew Peterson, charged with drunkenness, pleaded guilty, and were each fined 5s and costs, with the usual alternative. civil cases. Paisley v. Hmith and Walker.—Claim £7 10i, sheep rates for 1881. Judgment for the amount, by default, with costs. Hoggard v. Same.—Claim £14. Mr Lee, who appeared for the plaintiff, aßked ior an adjournment of six weeks to enable him to produce witnesses from Taranaki and Waikato. The Court granted the application, and fixed the hearing of the case for November 7. Torr Bros. v. F. Lawlor. — Claim £7 8s 7d. Judgment by default for the amount claimed, with costs £l 3s. E. Ashton v. J. S. Willis.- Claim £20, reDt of theatre for one week. Judgment for the plaintiff, by default, for the amount claimed, with costs and counsel's fee£l Is. Fortune and Black v. Dean.—Claim £1 3s 3d. Judgment for tbe plaintiffs, by default, for amount claimed, with costs 7s. Neal and Close v. W. Higgins.—Claim £3 14?, judgment debt. Tbe Court made an order requiring the defendant to pay the amount within one month, or in default of payment to be imprisoned in Napier gaol for fourteen daye.

| Barrows v. Gush.—-Claim 9s 6d, balance of judgment debt. MrLascelles, who appeared for plaintiff, said that the defendant had called at his office oo Saturday last and paid £4 10s, leaviug a balance of 9s 6d, which he promised to pay later in the evening, but had failed to do so. He would aßk the Court to make an order to have the balance, with costs, paid forthwith. His Worship made an order accordingly, allowing a solicitor's fee of 10s 6d to Mr Lascelles ; in default of the amount being paid forthwith, defendant to be imprisoned in Napier gaol for three days. Hollis v. Barrow.—Claim £5 Is 6d for goods supplied. Defendant filed a setoff for stud charges, which plaintiff disputed. The evidence of the plaintiff and Mr Smith, of Clive, was taken, after which the defendant made a statement on oath, and His Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff for £5 Is sd, with costs £1 2s, counsel'- fee £1 Is, and expenses of one witness 6s 6dParker v. Lindsay.—Claim £39 12s 9d for borough rates. Judgment for plaintiff, by default, for the amount claimed, with costs £1 ss. Wood v. Macdonald. — Claim £8 for commission, &c. Mr Lee for the plaintiff, and Mr Cornford for the defendant. Mr Cornford took exception to / the particulars, as no proper right of • claim was stated. Mr Lee explained that, although the plaintiff had not actually effected the sale of the property on which he claimed commission, he had, nevertheless, by the authority of the defendant, offered them for sale, and had been instrumental in introducing the purchaser. Mr Cornford said that, now Mr Lee had disclosed his ground for the claim, he would state the defence. (1.) That the plaintiff had no authority to sell to Dr. Hamilton, who subsequently became the purchaser, such authority being specially withheld in consequence of the defendant having negotiations at tbat time with Dr. Hamilton ; (2) tbat the plaintiff did not sell the property ia question, nor was he the means of effecting any sale for the defendant, or of introducing the purchaser. Evidence having been given, counsel on both sides addressed the Court, and His Worship delivered judgment as follows :—" In this case judgment must go for the defendant, as it is very clear that the purchaser was not introduced in any way by the plaintiff, nor wa9 he instrumental in effecting the sale. Judgment was then given in favor of the delendaot, with costs 7s 6d, Dr. Hamilton's expenses £l ls, defendant's travelling expenses 4s 6d, and counsel's fee £1 ls.