RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1909, 18 June 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. Chetham-Strode, Esq., E.M.) DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. Catherine Stacey, charged with drunkenness, was fined 40s, or to go to gaol for a week. Amelia Gorly, found in Queen street suffering from recent drinking, and apparently of unsound mind in consequence, was remanded for medical examination. Civil Cas’Js. Webb v. Townsend.—A c 1 aim for Ll2. Tbe defendant had filed his schedule yesterday. Judgment for the plaintiff by default. Henry Crone v J. Eyre,—Mr Harris for tbe defendant; Mr Barton for tbe plaintiff. Tbe action was brought for Ll7 as Od, the ba l anc2 of account. In evidence, an I 0 U for L2O was put in. On being questioned by Mr Harris, the plaintiff, who is a hotel and store keeper, said that the debt was incurred partly fer money lent and partly for grog supplied. He bad put tbe stamps on the IO U the same day it was given, and had informed the defendant of having done so. Mr Harris said tbe defendant ne,' r er signed the I 0 U. Secondly, the lOU appeared to be for a lump sum, of which no particulars had been rendered, and thirdly, part of the consideration was for goods for which the p'aiutiff was not responsible. He was af a ; d to call the defendant, as it might tend to discreditable disclosures. The defendant did not deny that the debt was due to the plaintiff. Eyre, the de'endant, on being examined, said he did not sign the 1.0. U. He was due him seven slid 1 mgs and sixpence winch be scored off because the plaint! if borrowed a wheelbarrow, the wheel of which was worth 7s Gd. He went up to plaintiff’s house and said he would shout. He was canvasser for a gentleman who was returned as Mayor, who gave instructions that two houses should be opened, Messrs Hancock’s and Crone’s. Mr Crone sent his bill to the Mayor who refused to pay the money, and Crone said he would have it out of somebody. The defendant admitted having given the order to Crone on behalf of the Mayor. In reply to Mr B rton, the defendant said he had never signed the 1.0.1 T. drunk or sober. He considered that the case bad assumed so serious an aspect, the plaintiff swearing that the defendant did sign it, and the defendant that he did not, that it was advisable to postpone the case to a future day. Mr Harris had no objection, but he thought the case might be decided on other grounds. The defendant said the transactions took p’ace at the first election of tbe Mayor. The case was adjourned to Tuesday next.

Mr Barton read to the defendant his memorandum that he did not sign the paper. The defendant admitted the words and added he never signed any paper in favor of Crone. Campbell (Manager of the Daily Timex and Witness Co.) v White.—A claim for L 7 15s 6d. Judgment was givsn by consent, the defendant having signed a declaration of insolvency. Pullen v Montagu.—A claim for L2. Judgment for the plaintiff, M ‘Ewan v Mary Staunton.—Mr Harris for the plaintiff ; Mr Ward for the defence. A claim for L 6 13s, balance of account for cartage. Mr Harris said that Mr Holton, contractor, had had the money handed to him for payment of the amount as agent for Mrs Staunton, It was not denied that the work was done, A receipt was shewn to the defendant for two pounds, purporting to to be signed, “for Thomas Holton.” The defendant said he never wrote these words, and that they had been added. Thev were in a different handwriting.—Thomas Holton gave evidence, that he had contracted to build for Mrs Staunton—that the had pro viced money for the building, weekly for wages during the progress of the work. Holton had agreed to build two houses for L 320 and to find work and materials, but he considered himself only the tool of Mrs Staunton. —Mr Ward produced a document purporting to be an agreement, which was objected to by Mr Harris, not being stamped. It was not received as evidence. Mr Ward asked for a nonsuit, on the ground that the contract was between Mrs Staunton and Holton. The Magistrate said he was of opinion that tee contract was made with Holton, as principal, and not as agent for Mrs Staunton. Judgment for the defendant.