RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CLYDE.

Dunstan Times, Issue 256, 22 March 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CLYDE.

Extended Jurisdiction. Before "Wilson Grey, Esq., li.M. Monday, March 18, 18C7. •Insley v. Bulmer—withdrawn. S. M'Divett v. M'Divett— settled. fame v. Dai iel Kermode. J. C. Chappel appeared for plaintiff, and W. L. Bailey for defendant. It appeared from the evidence which was very voluminous, that the plaintiff and his brother were entitled to eight shares in the Ida Valley Quartz Mining Company, but held in the names of defendant and others; also, that the plaintiffs were indebted to the defendant in the sum of £63. As a set off, it was arranged that six of the shares were to be retained, the other two to be transi'ered to plaintiff; the former part of the agreement was carried out, but the transfer cf the two shares was not made—hence arose the action. Ve. diet for plaintiff for tl.n amount claimed, £2O-, and'costs, or two weeks imprisonment. Burnett v. Mel lor- Claim £75. VI. L. Bailey appeared for plaintiff; J. (.'. Chun. pel for defendant, Mr bailey opened the ease by stating that the demand was for £35 value of a horse, saddle, and bridle, and £4o—certain moneys taken or won from his client at an illegal game ef cards iua licensed house—pkii tiffbeugin a state of intoxication. James Burnett, the plaintiff sworn, deposed that he was a carrier, and on the eveuingof the26tkJanuary,in company with one William Cairns, he.visited the defendant's house at lrybread, wliiist there, at the proposition of the defendant, he played him a, game at cards, at which he lost the sum of £25 ; he lost other 120 but which he regained on the last game. Oa the evening of the Ist Eebiuary he again played with defendant—on that occasion he lost the sum of £ls, besides a further sum of £ 12, which was not paid —on the evening of the 2nd, was again at the house of defendant, upon which coca siou he sold to defendant a mare, saddle and bridle for £.'3o, of which amount he received but £l2—he paid the £l2 to defendant in liquidation of losses the previous evening. On a subsequent occasioa he borrowed from defendant £2 to carry him to town. A receipt in due form was drawn out for the horse; also another document signed by the defendant, agreein to return the horse to plaintiff upon his, plaintiffs, refunding the £3o—both agreements produced. Upon cross-exami-nation, plaintiff said he Jiad on numerous occasions played at cards, but had never won or lost large sums of money. Robert M'Morran sworn deposed— J hat he recollected drawing up several memorandas affecting the sale of a horse, &&, saw money paid on account but could not say how much, the documents produced were the same he drew up and attested—considered at the time that the full amount was paid —did not count the money—was not aware of any anterior transaction between the parties—upon enquiring was told it was a 1 right. John Jlellor, defendant, sworn, deposed—That several games at cards were played between him and plaintiff, but with the exception of money for drinks no other money passed on the occasion ; the plaintiff was indebted to him on account of the card playing 421; also, £3 money lent. That ho purchased a horse, saddle, and bridle, from him for which he paid £3O in cash, and that he signed a document to the effect that on his, plaintiff, refunding the sum of £3O, ho should have the horse back. Several other witnesses were examined who proved the bona tide sale of the horse. Mr Bailey urged on behalf of plaintiff that advantage was taken of him while in a state of intoxication, and that the whole affair was a cheat and an illegal transaction..

The bench summing up, said, that from the evidence, both parties must have been well aware of what they wero doing. A ' nonsuit was given. Rivers v. Roscndalo—settled. Same v Hinobcliff—settled. Same v. Gilbert—settled. P hanley v. Kirby. Barry v. Fame. In both cases the judge said he had received an affidavit from the defendant, to the effect that not sufficient time had been given between the service: of the summons and its hearing to enable him to attend. Both plaintiffs objected and urged that the' cases be gone journcd till closing of court. Me lorv. Burnett—Claim f 100, balance due on an agreement -T. C. Chappel appeared for plaintiff, and L, W. Bailey for defendant. J. Mellor, plaintiff, sworn, deposed—That he sold to defendant, a bakery, a quantity of wood, and the right to cut timber from a bush, for the sum of £2OO ; he received as part payment an unpaid bill of exchange for £so—the sum of £45 due to defendant for carriage, and a further sum of £5 for a load of coals, in all £loo—the balarice £IOO being the amount sued for, and that delivery was made of the premises Ac.,' on the morning of Ist February. Mr Bailey objected to legality of the agreement—it not being properly stamped according to the Act, and asked for a nonsuit. The judge overru'ed the objectiou and allowed the document to be a legal one, upon the proper stamps together with 20 per cent for the omission being paid into Court. Witnesses were called who proved the agreement and delivery of the purchases. J. Burnett, do fondant, sworn, deposed—That he purchased the property to make himself safe 'for the £IOO due by plaintiff—that he had never taken possession of the property, and that the quantity of wood was mis-repre-sented therefore denied the liability. The Bench, in summing up, considered that great carele sness had been displayed in the purchase, and that if the defendant bought property without knowing exactly what he was buying they had nothing whatever to do with it. Verdict for amount claimed, £lbo, and £5 6s cost* Thoraahlen v. Hetherington —struck out. Shanley v. Kirby —Claim £53 15s sd. Verdict for full amount and costs. Barry v. Same—Claim £57 3s 7d. Verdict for full amount, and costs. After the disposal of these cases, tire District Court was formally opened, and the only matter that was brought before the notice of the Court was a special case reserved for opinion by the Warden of the Upper Manuherikia District, J. L. Simpson, Esq.; it was a case, M'ilyraontv, Bohering, which was tried before the Warden and Assessors at ?t. Bathau's on ' srh inst. ; the defendant taking exception to an item of £2 2s as agent's c6sts, under the 42nd rule of the Wardens' Court Hules—such agent being neither barristei nor solicitor, 'ihc parties not being present—the case was duly read, and opinion delivered, such opinion being'io the effect that the fee in question could not be included in the costs of the Warden's Court, the agent not being a barrister nor a solicitor. The Court then adjourned. : RESIDb.NT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, Extended Jurisdiction. Tuesday 19th March. Pcally v. llcc an—Claim for £5-1 18s Service insufficient—struck out. Scal'y it Ann v. Heenan—Claim for £29 8s 2d. —struck out, Seally v. Dewane—Claim for £ll 2s 4d —'struck out. Scally v. Dewane —Claim for £42 4s—struck out. This concluded the sitting. 'I he next sitting of the District Court to be he d at Clyde, will be on Monday, 20th May, 1867.