RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT CLYDE

Dunstan Times, Issue 238, 16 November 1866, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT CLYDE

Extended Jcrisdictio

P.efoiif. "Wilson Gray, Esj. P.M. Monday, 12th November.

Simmons v Currie.—Claim for LO7 15s, work and labour done. The evidence of phuitiff went to show that at one time he., owed, defendant a sum of L 53, to liquidate which he went to work in defendant's claim, at L 4 per week, he continued working on till the sum was cleared off, and the amount claimed incur-ed, defendant had however left the district, but hj d not discharged the plaintiff. . The Magistrate ruled that as the jlaim was not a paying one, rnd plaintiff having worked so long after defendant had left the place, that he took upon 'himself a certain amount of risk, he therefore gave a verdict for L 47 7s 6d, and costs. Kermode v M'Devitt.—Claim of LG3 for goods delivered. Defendant pleaded a set-off to the effect that plaintiff owed him the sum of LIOO, amount of verdict obtained against him in the Warden's Court at St. Bat-ban's. Judgement was given for the amount, but execution was to be stayed for two months, and longer should good cause be shown. Doran v Sloan.—Claim for I4Q 9s. for breach of agreement. Settled out of Court. Graves v Kitchinghara.—Claim for L3O moneylent to defendant and three others. From the evidence it appeared that the money had been lent to defendants upon the security of a claim which it was at the option of the plaintiff to possess himself should the money not be repaid in six months ; the six months had .expired but plaintiff refused to take tiie claim, it not being pavable, and defendants- having deserted it. Plaintiff had, however, applied for the claim, as an abandoned claim, in the Warden's Court, the application had been objected to by defendants, upon the grounds that he hail not deserted the claim. Judgement for amount c'aimed and costs. To take effect (by consent of plaintiff) in three months if the money was not paid. .. . Sideberg v Williams.—Claim for LIOO damages done to a dredging machine while in defendant's possession. It appeared by the evidence that the dredge had been rented to defendant who was to keep the same in repair, he had neglected to take proper precaution, and the dredge was sunk during a flood. A verdict of Lls damages and costs was returned in favor of plaintiff.