RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2120, 21 February 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq , R.M.) Civil Casks. A. and J. Macfarlano v. Winton.—LlO Os lOd. Mr Harris for the defendant. The defence was that a cheque for L 6 6s 6d had been paid to the plaintiff, and not credited. It was state d by the plaintiff that the cheque was received, md that lie gave L? 11s Gd in omui'm. The defendant sain lie only received 16s 6d in change. Judgment for plaintiff, ,L 4 .Us 4d. paid into court. Clapperton v. Thus. Stevens. —l7s Cd for amount of account and expences of court. Judgment by default for plain'iff. Lech v. Williams. —A claim for damage to a fence and trespass, L2O. Air Stewart for the plaiuti V; Mr Harris for the defence. The case was stated in evidence by the plain* tiff as follows :—J. R. Leach sa d he was applied to for permission by Mackenzie, on behalf of Williams, to cart stones from a qdarry on a private road through section 1 of 21 in his occupation, in case he got a Government contract for the supply of road metal at Otakia. The contract he believed was 449. They agreed in the event of his getting iho contract the carting should be al owed on th road a' the rate of one halfpenny pm y.-ud, <>r I 16 or LI7. Mr '■‘'iucftt go; i ii.it contract, and before coming to a deli.de a„rocmcii , Mackenzie callefr, and said they bad g t an ther contract for goi 10 ar s. and wanted to have the right, of carting from that quarry. Witness ivf.i-cd to mai e iirraiig- ment until he hj id semi Mr 8 not , with uhuu ho ultimately a iced and refused to .allow Mackenzie the use of the road. Mack-nzie not wilin' andlog this refusal used the mail, and wi'ness had a fence put up to prevent it; that fence was pulled down the morning followin ■> and he put up another fence, and in his presence Mr Hobiu-on sai I he was instructed by Mr Mackenzie .and Mr Williams to take it down and he did so accordingly. Mr Sinott, on examination, estimated the damage done to the road and fence at L2O. For the defence it was alleged that leave wa* given to the defw*

dant to remove rtone, and that It had not been revoked, 'that being a license, coupled with au interest, a fair and reasonable time should elapse before revoking it, and that had not been given Mr Hands cited several cams in support of las view. The defendant, in his evidence, said in making the arrangement with Leach no paiticular contract was mentioned, but that it wtn said there were several coi trac's to be let for which lie (Williams) was tendering. He saw Leach, and asked to have the right of road reserved for 2000 or 300 I yards, and he agreed to do so. The conversation took place in Fie pres neo of Mr Mackenzie. - Mr Mackenzie in his evid nee sta’ed ilut he read all the tenders cailod for over in the Gazette, Imt did not cme to an arrangement at that time Afterwards he and Mr Williams called on Leach, told him they had net got the large contract, but made an arrangement with him to re erve the right of road for 2,500 \ ards, no matter what bargain was made with Mr Sinott. At another interview, in the presence of all the sctiolars in Mr Leach’s school, he said, “ As sure as death, I diO the best for you with Mr Sinott.” Judgnv-nt for the plaintiff, damages LB. Eustou v. Fish, as Trustee in Backhands Estate.—Claim for 1.2 ss, for plasterer’s work. The plaintiff was nonsuito I.