RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2158, 6 April 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

This Day. (Before A.C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases, Manning v. Fraser, —A claim for L 5, for cash advanced. There was also a crossaction, and the two cases wore hoard together. The latter was a claim of L 3 2s GJ, for expenses. Mr Hums for the plaintiff : Mr Barton for the defendant. The plaintiff said that in April ho was applied to, while' at Cobb’s office, by the defendant Manning, to go and take possession, under a bill of sale, of some (lax-mills in the Waugola district. He replied he could not go, but would get another person. Manning asked the name of the proposed substitute, and was told it was Dunlop. He objected that it was possible tlxe work might not be done properly ; and asked would he become guarantee for him ? To this Fraser agreed, and stated that L 3 3s was his charge for taking possession. Manning told him that ho did not oare much ab m: takingpossession, butif hecould get LSO or LIOO and expences, Dunlop need not take possession. A written authority was given to Dunlop to that effect. Fraser receiv- d five pounds from Manning for travelling expenses. He gave L 3 2s 6d to Dunlop for coach fare and expences. Manning wanted also a summons serving, for which it was agreed LI should be charged. Dunlop served the summons, and paid 2s 6d for a telegram from Balclutha to state the amount claimed was paid. In carrying out Manning’s instructions Fraser had incurred a liability of L 8 2s 6d, in respect of which he had received L 5. In cross examinati- n by Mr Barton defendant said Dunlop instead of charging the full expences incurred, of L 8 3s Cd, on receipt of the LSO in lieu of taking possession of the flax mills, charged L 6. Dunlop said when he went up he was expressly instructed not to levy under the bill of sale, if he could get about LSO to LIOO with expences. The witness confirmed what was stated by Fraser. Manning denied having seen Fraser at Cobb’s coach office, ami stated that tho arrangement was made in Mr Howard’s shop. He denied having made any arrangement for service of the summons nor for payment of the telegram. He had an interview with Fraser, who said that Dunlop had made a great mistake, and had not charged sufficient for his expences. Ho got Mr Howard to make arrangements for him with Fraser, for he once had a trailsactieu with a bailiff" before and - got the worst of it. He never made an arrangement with Fraser that L 3 should be given him as a guarantee. He was not aware what poundage a bailiff was entitled to on account of a seizure. Mr G. R. Howard said that he saw Fraser at Cobb’s office, and made an appointment to meet Manning, when the arrangement was made. The expences of levying were to be paid by the mortgagor, and no agreement was made for cost of serving the summons. His Worship said with regard to tho guarantee it was a drawn battle as the plaintiff said one thing which the defendant denied. With regard to the expences, it was plain that Dunlop was Fraser’s servant, and it was acknowledged a sufficient sum was not received for expences. He was entitled to expences. of serving the summons. His decision, therefore, was in the case of Fraser v. Manning, LI 2s Cd fop the plaintiff; and in the ca e of Manning \. Fraser, L 5 for the plaintiff.

Stavelcy and Co. v. Dale.—L9 6s, for goods supplied. Mr Ward, for the defendant, said the debt was contracted on account of Gardner and Dale. Mr Pellamy, manager to Messrs Staveley and Co., proved the receipt of the order, which he stated was on Mr Dale’s private account. For the defence, it was stated that it was mutually agreed that expenses of both partners should bo paid by the firm, and that had Gardner and Dale been sued, the money would have been paid. Mr Cavalier, clerk to Messrs Gardner and Dale, said that jt was agreed between Mes-rs Gardner and Dale, that Mr Gardner should pay it. His Worship said, clearly whatever arrangement was made between the partners, the goods were supplied to Dale. Judgment for plaintiff, L 9 6s, with costs. Eliza Macpherson v. A. Muir.—L2. Mr Ward for the defendant. The plaintiff said she engaged with Mr Muir as barmaid at his tent at the races, for which she was to receive LI a day. She asked about her expenses, and was told she had nothing to do with that, but she was to be at his house at 9 o’clock. She was punctually there at 8.45, and Mrs Muir refushig to pay her fare, she was prevented fulfilling her engagement; she therefore claimed the amount agreed upon. Verdict for the plaintiff for the amount with costs.

Hanslow and Sampson v. Maunders.— L 9 18s, for goods supplied. Judgment by default for plaintiff for the amount.