RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Dunstan Times, Issue 359, 12 March 1869, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

CLYDE, Tuesday, March 9, Atkins v. Moore.—This was a claim for the sum of £l4, upon an account stated Mr. Brough who appeared for the defen ant pleaded a set off exceeding in amount the plaintiff’s demami. The notice and particulars of set off had not been file ■ in time, but after argument the Benehallowe-i the set off to be put in. The whole of the- items claimed by the Defendant were admitted, with two exceptions,—First, a charge of £] Is., (or services rendered by the efendant to the plaintiff, at the election in August last, and 2nd, a sum of £lO 10s. for twenty-one weeks rent of a shop, occupied by the plaintiff for the purpose of storing timber. With regard to the first item, Atkins iu his ov donee swore most positively that he ha : never authorised the defendant to act on his behalf on the occasion referred to but upon cro s-examination by Mr. Brough he admitted that an Order (produced) with signature attached, had been given by him, to the defendant, but that he had forgotten all about it, consequently the first disputed item was disposed of in favor of the defendant. The quo tion of rent was next discussed, the defen ant swearing that the same premises had been previously let by him at 12s, Cd. per week, and that he had in consequence of the occupancy thereof by the plaintiff refused an offer of £5 for the use of the shop in question during the Race Week. After a great deal of contradictory evidence, ju- gmeut was given for the plaintiff for to 8s , being £8 I2s. less than the amount claimc , and allowing ss. per week for twenty weeks rent of the shop.

-Liueston v. Bailey.—lu this case a summons hal been served upon the defendant under the 82ml -ectiou of the Resi ent Magistrates’ Act, ISCB, to show cause why he should not give up possession of certain premises occupied by him, and held over after notice to quit had been served Mr. Brough appeared for the plaintiff, The defendant pleaded that he held the premises under an agreement am; that his term did not expire until April next. On the agreement being pro need, Mr. Brough drew the attention of the Bench to the fact that the stamp had been improperly cancelled and that consequently the document coni: not be received in evidence. After a lengthened discussion, the Bench overrule.! the objection, stating that although the stamp bore only the initials of the attesting witness, the spirit of the Stamp Act had been complied with. The next point raised by the Solicitor for the plaintiff was, that the document in question being a paper writing relating to the occupancy of a tone meat, was fnsuffieiently stamped, the value of the stamp affixed being one shilling only whereas by the Schedule to the Act, a stamp duty of two shillings and sixpence was requisite On this ground the Bench ordered that the document was inadmissable and an Order w.s ma 'e for the defendant to give up possession on Tues ay next, ante pay the sum of £2 5a being the amoun t of rent up to the 2nd March instant.