RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume III, Issue 803, 1 December 1865, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

THIS HAY. (Before the Hon. A. C. Strode, 8.M.) HHUNKENNESS. John Eox, on bail, charged with this offence, was fined 20s. CIVIL CASES. D. M ‘Daehlan v. Win. Porteous —claim £l7 Is 6d. Judgment, by consent, for amount claimed and costs. M. Joel v. John Casey and John Smith—claim £5 14, balance of an account for ale. Smith pleaded that his partner had received the goods and sold them. Casey said that he had paid his share of the account, and that his partner was indebted to him. The Magistrate said that their affairs had nothing to do with the plaintiff, and gave judgement for the amount claimed and costs.

* W. H. Reynolds and A. W. Morris (as trustees of the New Zealand Building Society) v. Alexander Grant —claim £ls 7s 6d for rent of premises in Elm Row. It appeared that the defendant originally took the premises from Mr Robert Hogg, who had subsequently mortgaged the property to the Society, which now sought to recover the arrears of rent. Judgment for plaintiffs, amount claimed and costs. Same v. Henry Makeliam —claim £7, rent of premises in York Place. The defendant pleaded that he only knew the plaintiffs in the matter since the 24th October, when the solicitors of the Society served him with notice to pay rent only to them. He had originally rented the house from a G. Bick, who had mortgaged to the Society, and made default. Judgment for plaintiffs for amount claimed with costs. W. J. Honniiigham v. W. Towers, claim of £1 13s for advertising. Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs.

William Watson, proprietor of the Royal Hotel, v. C. A. Rees, claim of 16s for

pastry, 12s luncheon to band and waiters. The plaintiff’s evidence was to the effect that Mr Rees had the day before the Forresters’ F§te given him a general order to supply necessary refreshments to the men. He called witnesses to prove that pastry had not only been supplied to men in the defendant’s employ without payment, but that he, the defendant, had been a pretty good customer on the same terms. The defendant denied that he had given authority to plaintiff to furnish the supplies, and said that he had paid for all he obtained himself. The Magistrate thought the defendant liable for the refreshments given to his servants, and gave judgment for £1 4s 6d and costs. John Bunce v. James Young, claim of £2 8s 9d for work and labor done. Defendant pleaded payment, and produced plaintiff’s receipts for a quantity of glazing according to a specification. The plaintiff admitted these, but said that the work done was in excess of that named in the tender. The Magistrate considered the receipts final, and non-suited the plaintiff. Andrew Duggain v. James Ketchfield, claim of £8 12s for money lent. The plaintiff said that he had lent the defendant the money to pay his wife’s passage from Melbourne, upon his promise to repay it as soon as he was able. The defendant said that the passage was paid by the plaintiff in order that his wife might have company on the voyage, but the Magistrate thought this statement so improbable that he gave judgment for the amount claimed with costs. JUDGMENTS BY DEFAULT. S. Bird v. W. Waller, claim of 18s for groceries supplied. * Same v. D. M‘Kerykin, claim of £lO 13s lid for groceries supplied.