RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 2009, 13 October 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C, Strode, Esq., R.M.) DRUNKENNESS. James Conroy, David Dunlop, and Benjamin Johns were each fined 10s. Civil Cases. EXTENDED JURIS MOTION. Jane Steadman v. James M‘Donald.—This was a claim for L 26 17s. the amount of a promissory note. Judgment by default. Same v. William Mitchell—A claim for L 65 6s Bd, for goods sold. Mr Stewart, who appeared for the defendant, pleaded payment, and produced a receipt signed by the plaintiffs late husband. Mrs Steadman, on being examined, stated that she could not say whether or not tho signature to the document produced was that of her late husband. It was not written in his usual style. However, on comparing the signature to the receipt with that to other documents, it was very plain that it was a genuine one. Judgment was accordingly given for the defendant. David Ross v. Alexander Callender.—This was a claim for L 34, for professional services. The sum of L 3 was paid into Court. Mr Wilson for the plaintiff, and Mr Macassey for the defendant. It appeared from the plaintiff’s evidence, that in 1867, ho had been engaged to prepare plans and specifications of buildings the defendant proposed to erect on his property at East Taieri, He did bo and forwarded them to the defendant, who replied that he was not then in a position to carry them out, owing to severe losses by the February floods. He kept the plana for a very considerable time, and in the oapjy part of this year, finding nothing was being the plaintiff sent in his claim for commission, 'fhe (Jefonco was that Mr Ross had been instructed to prepare plans of buildings to be erected a; i a r c,qst"of from L 250 to L3OO, whereas those prepared by him involved an expenditure of over

LI 100, and were therefore useless. This was denied by Mr Ross, but evidence to that effect was given by the defendant, his wife, and son. Judgment was given for the Jdefendant.

Geo. M'Lean (as Provincial Treasurer) v Chisholm, was a claim for L2i 1 Is, amount of a promissory note. Judgment by default. Same v James Leven, was a claim for L 26 10s 6d. Judgment by default. The case of Barnet v Hatch, was dismissed for non-appearance.