RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2136, 11 March 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) CHARGE OF ASSAULT. Kushtoii V. Rusliton, a charge of assault, was dismissed for non-appearance. Civil Cases. Scohle v. Merry.—L4 7s, balance of account for goods supplied. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount, with costs. Notice of set-off having been given, and a witness having been subpcßiied, the plaintiff made application for cost of attendance, which was allowed. William Thompson v. Samuel Symms.— L 5 Ills, the value of a dishonored cheque, judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount, with costs. W. J. Scoular v. W. Rogers.—A claim for LS 9s I Id, for 10 bags sugar. Judgment by default for the amount, with costs. Reeves and Co. v. Morrison. —L 9 13s 3d, for balance of account for goods supplied. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount, with costs. Collar v. Scully.—Llo 6s, balance of account. The debt was admitted, and terms of payment arranged. Judgment by consent. Same v. Margaret Robertson.—L2 Is. The amount was admitted, and terms of payment were arranged. Judgment by consent for the plaintiff. Stratten v. Eras. Porter.—A claim for L 9 17s, commission as architect on L 394 10s, at per cent., the amount of tenders for buildings to be erected. Mr Ward for the plaintiff'. The defendant pleaded not indebted, and that the plaintiff was never employed. In evidence the plaintiff produced a sketch given by the defendant to him, in accordance with which he prepared plans and specifications for a shop and premies. Tenders were invited, one of which was L 394 19a. The building was never put up. In cross-examination by the defendant, the plaintiff said the memoranda produced were given to him by defendant himself. Mr Ward put th« defendant in the box, who said that the instructions and arrangements were made with Mr Brown, who by the evidence of the plaintiff was his assistant. Richard Brown, assistant to the plaintiff, said Mr Barnes recommended him to call. He saw Mrs Porter, and told her he was assisting the plaintiff in surveying. Mr Porter was absent, but he, in company with Mr Stratten, called the next day and introduced that gentleman to Mr and Mrs Porter, the latter of whom gave instructions respecting the work, to be done. He made no agreement on his own account; whatever was done by him was as assistant to Mr Stratten. His Worship could only come to the conclusion that Mr Stratten was employed, that the charge was a fair one, and the plaintiff was fairly entitled to the amount. Judgment for plaintiff, L 9 17s, with costs. Carver and Stead v. Crowhurst. —L 7. There was a further account on behalf of Carver only, 1.8 13s 6d ; Mr Harris for the plaintiff; Mr Ward for the defendant. From the evidence, it appeared that the plaintiff Carver and his partner let to Crowhurst a shop in George street, on which he entered on the Ist February. In about a fortnight he learned that Crowhurst was absent, and that his wife was left in occupation of the place. Mrs Crowhurst called and said that her bust and was gone away, and was not likely to return, as he had gone to Mount Ida ; and as she could not pay the rent, she wished the agreement cancelled. After several interviews, the plaintiff presented an account for L 6 5s 6d for work done, and told her the amount of rent for the six months. Mrs Crowhurst promised to pay, but the day before the amount was to be paid that lady removed all furniture from the premises. He agreed to take a mouth s rent. On receiving the key, Mrs Crowhurst said her husband might he at home, and he concluded that the story of her having been away from town was part of a plot to get rid of the premis.s. Several witnesses were examined for the defence. Judgment for Carver and Stead, L 5 ; and for Carver, LS 13s 6d, with costs in each case. JUDGMENT. Barr v. Austin.—His Worship delivered judgment in this case as follows The evidence in this case discloses to my mind that the circumstances press somewhat hardly upon the defendant, but I am certainly of opinion that it is a case that can he decided under the 82nd section of the ‘Resident Magistrates Act, 1867,’ the defendant being, as the case is presented to me, a tenant-at-will, and having neglected or refused to deliver up possession of the premises. It appears to me to be one of those instances which strikingly exemplify the folly of a man having dealings with land being his own lawyer. Upon consideration of the matter, I feci I have no alternative but to make an order that possession of the premises mentioned in the plaint be given by the defendant to the plaintiff on or before the 11th day of June next.”