RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1999, 1 October 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., 11. M.) DRUNKARD. J. Fitzgerald was fined 10s for drunkenness. Civil Cases. (Re-hearing.) Fraser v. Curie.—Mr Stewart for the p’aintiff, Mr Wilson for the defendant. This case was .allowed to be reheard, on the ground that evidence had been discovered nob obtainable on the first hearing, respecting payment for a boiler. The evidence was fully reported in the Evening Star of the 22nd inst, and was substantially the same, Mr Curie said, on examination, that to the best of his belief, ho had never received two pounds of Fraser. Mr Stewart’s clerk, in serving the summons on him (Mr Curio), said Frazer was a regular nuisance to the office, and would swear anything. He (Eraser) said that he had paid the witness two pounds, he thought, at Mr D. Henderson’s door. Thomas Kay, clerk to Mr Stewart recollected serving the summons on Mr Carle, who said he had a contra account against Fraser, of whom he had received two pounds. Ho had given credit for it in his books, hut had given him no receipt. Cross-exomined by Mr Wilson : Ho could not he mistaken in what Mr Curie said, and did not state ihe conversation to Mr Stewart or to Mr Fraser until he heard that Mr Curio had denied receiving the two pounds. Ho would swear Mr Curio did not say “ Fraser claimed two pounds, which lie had-rcceivcd and credited in his hooks, but had given no receipt for.” He never said the words attributed to him by Mr Curie, nor words to that effect. The plaintiff Fraser, re-examined, said he never had a large and a small can, nor any nails after the boiler was received. (The day book of the firm of Park and Curie was produced, in which were entries charging Fraser with the goods.) The Magistrate, after looking at the entry, referred the ledger of the defendant to Mr Wilson fur examination, from which an entry was erased on the credit side of Fraser’s account.

His Worship said : I hare very little doubt in my own mind tltat an entry has been made in this book (the ledger), “ By cash, two pounds.” Whether or not the L2 has been received I am not prepared to say ; but that that entry has been made I am prepared to say. On that ground, if that be the fact, the evidence of the defendant is most disgraceful. The best way of making an alteration in books is to draw the pen across the the entry, and what is beneath can be seen. Mr Curie explained that he had made an entry, “By cash, 17s 6d,” instead of “ By chaff,” and that he erased the first entry and made the correct entry lower down. His Worship said there were distinct traces of the tail of a “ 2.” Of that there could be no doubt. Judgment for the plaintiff, LI 8s 6d, with costs. ASSAULT. John Dodds was charged by M. A. Evans with assaulting her in her own house. The prisoner’s wife was engaged washing at the complainant’s house when the assault charged was committed, and had to assist in rescuing her from him. Hp was remanded for medical examination, os there seemed reasop tq believe he was of unsound mind, Civil Cases. M'Kenzie v. Whittington,—Mr Stewart for the plaintiff. This was a claim for damages for breach of agreement. —The plaintiff said he agreed with the defendant to take some promises in the Cutting, on which he was to enter on the 25th August, hut which were to be put in proper repair. In consequence of the repair s not having been done, lie was obliged to re-arrange with Ids former landlord. He had paid 1.5 in consequence of defendant asking 1.2 deposit hut not having change he left the whole in his hand In cross-examination by the defendant, the plaintiff admitted that he refused to take possession of the premises ; that he offered to forfeit L2 on condition of L 3 being returned ; that he had had a little too much beer the night before the 27i hj August; and that a window agreed to he supplied by the plaintiff was not sent according to agreement.—The defendant said he agreed to let the plaintiff the premises mentioned, who was to enter on the Ist September, and went to great expense in putting it in repair according to agreement. On the 27th August, in conversation with the plaintiff, the latter said ho had changed his mind, and wanted L 3 returned. He refused to return anything of the L 4 deposited, telling the plaintiff he might think himself well off he was not made to pay a month’s rent.—His Worship did not consider the defendant entitled to retain more than the deposit agreed upon—two pounds. Judgment for plaintiff, L 3. W. H. Cuttcn v. Stenhouse.— Mr Ward for the defence. The claim was for Ll3 2s 6d, for piilk guppjded. There was a cross action by the'dataadapt against the plaintiff, and both c'ses were heard ' together- For the defence it was alleged that the milk was bad; that Stenhonse’s customers refused to take it, and it was returned on bis hands. The plaintiff said that no complaint of quality was made prior to a claim being made for payment, and that the defendant by letter had admitted the debt. The defendant Stenhouse acknowledged writing the letters attributed to him, hut said that it was agreed ,that a ll allowance should be made.” Evidence was'given to show that the milk supplied was bad. Mr Cutten’s servants were called, who said the mi k was supplied as received from the cow, the evening’s milk being kept over until the followin" morning. The cans were cleaned every day, although complaints had been jmade of th,eir not being clean. His Worship said he was of ppinjon that in the case of Cutten v. Stenhouse, the defendant’s letters were conclusive against him, as lie had acknowledged the debt, and asked to be allowed to the Ist of October for payment. He had made no claim for damage until the summons was served, when he stated his intention to claim Lls for bad milk supplied. In the case of Cutten v. Stenhouse, verdict for the plaintiff, Ll3 2s Gd ; in the case of Stenhouse v. Cutten, LIS, verdict for the defendant. (lamps y. Mackinnon.—A claim for L 4 for cash lent. Verdict for the plaintiff by default. Jane Steadman v, Purvis,—Mr Howoj'th for the plaintiff, Mr Stewart for the defendant. The claim was for L 3 Gs 9J. Jane Steadman, executrix of the late William Steadman, said that part of the amount .claimed was for oats supplied, and 10s,

which the defendant had received partly for allcdged feed of his horses, and partly for poundage, for which the defendant was alleged to have charged, but not paid. The horses had strayed from the stable into an unfenccd paddock, lu reference to the charge for poundage, Mr Stewart said poundkeepers were allowed to place animals impounded in stables where it was for the benefit of the animals.—Mr Howorth cross-examined the defendant, who is poundkeeper, as to whether the horses were ever in the pound. It was elicited that they were placed in his stable, where they remained two hours. He was entitled to charge 2s 6d each horse for sustenance, and 2s 6d each for poundage fees, and he considered his stable the pound as it formed part of the land. —A person named Currie proved impounding the horses, which had got into his oats from an un fenced part of his land.—His Worship said there had been no settlement since 18G4, and the weight of evidence of receipt of goods, excepting for 9s, was in favor of the defendant. With regard to the 10s, the claim against the poundkeeper should have been by information and summons, and therefore had been wrongly brought. He suggested to Mr Howorth to withdraw the item of 10s, and judgment was given for 9s—each party paying half costs Hogg and Hutton v. Hastic. - L 3 6s od, for butter sold and delivered. Verdict for the plaintiffs fo. the amount with costs Steadman v. Pratt, L3.—A cl dm on an 1.0. U. Judgment for the plaintiff by default.

M‘lntyre and Another v. Cutten. —Mr Macassoy for the plaintiffs, and Mr Cook for the defence. A claim for L2O, damage to cattle through placing cattle in an infeited pound. [Left sitting.]