RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2138, 14 March 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Oat. (Before A. 0. Strode, Esq., R.M,) Civil Cases. Loxton v. M‘Kay.—A claim for L 8 Bs, balance due for work and labor done. Judgment by default for plaintiff for the amount, with costs. M‘Donald v. Jas. Houghton,—A claim for L 3 U)s, of which L2 10s was for breaking the shafts of a buggy, and LI for loss of use of the buggy. The plaintiff founded his claim on the following circumstances : —The defendant and a lady were riding on the Port Chalmers road, on which the plaintiff was driving in a buggy. On coming in sight of the buggy, round a sharp corner, the defendant’s horse shied, and bolted into the bush; the lady’s horse kept straight on, until nearly opposite the plaintiff's horse’s head, when, either by accident or otherwise, it turned and came in contact with the horse in the buggy, when the shafts snapped ; and the claim was for the amount charged by the owner of the buggy, Mr Brown. With the consent of the defendant, the further hearing was postponed to Friday. Crawshaw v. Thunderbolt.—Ls 3s for repairing an express waggon. The debt was admitted, and it was arranged to pay L2 10s down, and the remainder in three weeks. Judgment for plaintiff by consent. Boardman v. James Walsh. —LlS 18s. Mr Barton for the plaintiff, and Mr Stewart for the defendant. Mr Stewart pleaded a set-off, L 29 10s 9<L The plaintiff, who is very deaf, a .d apparently totally unable to hear the Suestions put to him, said he was engaged to o painting, glazing, varnishing, and graining work for the defendant, and that it was passed by the architect as completed. According to agreement, the defendant was to five 24 hours’ notice before taking upon imself to do any work; but he got the sashes made and glazed without giving any notice whatever. By agreement the plaintiff was to deduct the value of anything supplied by defendant from the amount of account* but he had overcharged a quantity of glass supplied. He was quite prepared to do the work, but the defendant had taken upon himself to get goods of Mr Scanlan, and charge to the plaintiff, a course which he refused to reoogniae. An order for L2 15s was given on one Spiers, and 13a 6d paid on aocount ; and after keeping it two months he wanted to return the order but had lost it. For the defence, it was urged that the work was not done according to contract, that the glazing had been done cheaper than the plaintiff could have done it himself, aud that the work was never completed. As to the order given to Spiers, it had never been acknowledged, and as to the stained glass, no objection was raised at the time respecting the price, and it was put into the frames by the plaintiff himself.—His Worship considered the balance of evidence was in favor of the defendant It appeared that the order on Spiers was not accepted by him, and that the glazing was specially done by consent of the plaintiff. Judgment for the defen. dant.