RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 2001, 4 October 1869, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) DRUNKARDS. Catherine Gray, an old offender, was lined L 5, or 14 days’imprisonment. Henry Hare, for disorderly conduct in a shop, and drunkenness, was fined 10s. Civil Cases. Gardener v. Wilson.—A claim for balance of wages, LI, and and a claim for one week’s •wages ifi lieu of notice, LI 10s. Mr Stewait for the defendant. The defendant paid LI into Court. The plaintiff is a journeyman baker, and having been fined in ihc .Vagiatrate’s Court for furious driving, a quarrel ensued, and he left. For the defence it was contended, that the plaintiff left of his own accord, and put the defendant to great loss and inconvenience, by leaving some dough in bad cmulition, whereby some biscuits were gpoilccl y and not giving concct accounts of the bread delivered. Judgment for the defendant for the amount paid into Court. APPL'CATION FOR A RE-HEARING. Mr Wilson applied for a re-hearing in the case of Rudd v. L. 8011, on the ground of surprise, and having a defence on its merits He stated that as the case stood, a verdict hy default was given against his client, who had delivered the goods claimed hy the plaintiff, aud she was now liable for 1.40, the value claimed, and L2 for detention of goods. Ha would be c ntent if, instead of a re-hear-ing, the plaintiff would accept a verdict for L2, which was all he was entitled to by the verdi t. Mr Stewart agreed to the arrangement, and the Court decided accordingly. Civil Cases Resum d. Broom v. Macgrcgor and Bethuno.—Mr Bathgate for the plaintiff; Mr Turton for Macgrcgor, and Mr Wilson for Bethune. The claim was Ll7 5s for depasturing a number of sheep that trespassed upon the plaintiff’s improved land. Mr Bathgate having stated the grounds of the claim, Mr Wilson objected that there was a misjoinder, that both defendants, by Mr Bathgate’s own shewing, could not be liable. Mr Bathgate was allowed to amend and selected Macgrcgor as the person whom he would sue. The name of Mr Bethune was withdrawn. Mrs Brown gave evidence of the trespass of the sheep. Mr Turton admitted the trespass, but maintained the sheep were not the defendant’s, nor was he liable. From the evidence of Macgrcgor it appeared that he let a portion of the farm for two months for grazing a number of sheep to Mr Bethune. It was an absolute letting his property to Mr Bethune for two months, and ha therefore had no control over them. During that time he lived on the farm, and Mr Bethune’s shepherd occasionally went to sec them. In crossexamination the defendant said he only let the grass : that he had 20 to 30 head of cattle running with the sheep. Mr Bethune knew the cattle were on the farm. The agreement was verbal. Mis Worship thought if any one was liable Bethune was the ptisan. Verdict for the defendant. Milligan v. Milligan. A claim for a balance of Ll3, due at the termination of a partnership. Mr Ward for the plaintiff, and Mr Wilson for the defence. In cross-exami-nation by Mr Wilson, the plaintiff said there was no written agreement between the partners ; that when the publichouse in Walker street was taken in partnership with the defendant, one part of the a greement was that the latter should continue to work, and the plaintiff and his wife manage the house, until he found s mething better to do.—For the defence, it was contended that there never had been a partnership. The defendant said the plaintiff was allowed to remain in the house in Walker street, until he commenced “ chisselling,” when he told h : m he must go. There had been no settlement of partnership accounts, as there was no partnership between him and the plaintiff, but he had given Mrs Milligan L 7, as they were without money, A witness, named Tracey, said 1). Milligan had told him he had agreed to pay John Milligan L2O, and had paid him L 7, but would pay him no more. —His Worship that the final settlement was on the 16th June, and there was an understanding that L2O would be paid, and that L 7 bad been paid. Judgment for the plaintiff, Ll3 and costs. Taggart v. Ryan.—A claim for L 9 10s for two pairs of jockey boots and colors. Mr Ward for plaintiff. The case was undefended. Verdict for the plaintiff for the amount, with costs. Farrandv. Ray.—Ls 5s Bd, for groceries supplied. Judgment for the plaintiff by default. Eccles v. Ramsay.—Ll9 4s, the amount of a promissory note, dishonored. Judgment by default for plain! iff, with costs. Graham v, Boyis.—l4s 7d, for meat sop plied. 10s lOd was paid in Court, The claim was therefore for lOlbs beef, at 4i i ; value 3s 9d. A witness was called, who said he saw the money paid to Mr Stone, manager to the plaintiff at Caversham. Judgment for the plaintiff, for the amount paid into Court, The Court then adjourned.