RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1947, 2 August 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This May. (Before A. Chetbam-Strode, Esq., R.M.) DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. John Frew and James Roebuck for drunkenness, were each lined 10s. Richard Patten for being drunk while in charge of a horse and cart, 20s. Charles Young, on bail, 20s ; and James Lowe 40s. on similar charges. STEALING FROM A DWELLING. Bridget Kane was charged with stealing two pairs of stockings, a blue Guernsey frock, a red and white Crimean shirt, and a pair of riding pants from the house of James Harris in t'astle street. The offence was proved, and she was sentenced to four months imprisonment with hard labor. SHOPLIFTING. Andrew Russell was charged by Constable Shearer with stealing a pair of boots from the shop of Mr M'Landress, in Princes street. He was further charged with stealing goods from the shop of Messrs Hay Brothers and Wright.—The prisoner pleaded guilty to both charges, and was sentenc’ d to imprisonment for three calendar months, with hard labor, in each case. Civil Cases. M'Cubbin v. Elizabeth Lowe.—An undefended claim for L2 3s. Judgment for the plaintiff by default. Maria Keenan v. Edmund Morrissy, L 8 15s lid,—The case was undefended, and judgment given for the plaintiff by default. Same v. JXfnes Burnett, 111 Os 3d.— Judgment for the plaintiff by default, f Heuningham \v. Kincaid and M‘Queen —a chiim for damages, amounting to LlO, for notvJiilfilment-of a contract for taking down, repairing, and re-setting a boiler. Mr Wilson for the plaintiff, Mr Haggitt for the defendants. W. J. Heuningham said—ln consequence of the chimney at his house having been blown down, it was discovered that the kitchen boiler was defective. He wrote a n te to the defendants, knowing them to bo in extensive business, asking—“ Is it worth your while to undertake a small job at my house, to repair and fix and re-set a boiler?” A reply was written across the note—“ Will send a man to-morrow.” The man did not come according to promise; but the boiler was fetched the next day, and three days afterwards an account was presented or 13 Cs 6d. The witness objected to the amount charged and wished some one to inspect it on his behalf. He also declined to pay the account presented until the work was completed, but proposed to hand the amount to a third party, the sum ultimately agreed upon to be paid over. The value of the kitchen range was originally Lid or LI 2, and it was useless without the boiler. Great inconvenience was experienced for . w nit of the boiler, as it had not been returned. Mr Hagcilt in defence said the whole case turned upon one word in the al!e ed contract, —the word ‘ re-set ” the boiler, to do which the def-ndan f s did not a ree. Evidence was given for the defence to show that the original agreement did not include resetting the boiler.—The Magistrate considered the main question was, whether the boiler was to be reset or not, according to the contract? The evidence for the defence explained how the charge for re-setting was made. With regard to the question of lien, a tradesman had a lieu on go da in hand to the amount of his charge.. The main question, therefore, was the question of whether the contract was for setting up the boiler. He had never seen the work done by any other than a bricklayer. As to the question of deposit, the defendants had a right to refuse the proposal. It was also important to observe, that if the boiler had been set they would have lost their lien Mr Henningham’s course was to pay the amount under protest, and sue for the overcharge. The weight of evidence as to contract was in favor of the defendants, and judgment was given for them accordingly.— Mr Haggitt applied for costs, which were ordered.

Purvis v. Bra ling.—For money paid L 3. Mr Wilson for the defendant.—The plaintiff’s wife said she had agreed to purchase some furniture of the defendant, with the intention of beginning a boarding-house, which was to be paid f--r by instalments. She had paid him L.'l 10s on account. Finding she was m-t likely to succeed, she went to the defendant, who agreed to take the furniture Lack, and to charge her LI for the use of it. She now sued for the balance.-For the defence it was stated that the agreement was, that the pound was to he considered in addition to the money already puid for the use of the furniture. The defendant said t.-e value of the furniture was LlO odd. Ultimately, he agreed to take a colonial sofa instead of money.—The Magistrate considered there was a misconception in the matter, and could not do otherwise than give judgment for the defendant.