RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2183, 6 May 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. Kingston v. Green. L 25 19s 3d, for balance of account for sails, canvass, and boat furniture. The claim was admitted, but the defendant pleaded insolvency, and the case was withdrawn. Johnston v. Christie.—A claim for L4O, balance of account for work and labor and damage done, and goods supplied. Mr Howorth objected that the whole account was larger in amount than the limit of the jurisdiction of the Court. Mr Barton adduced instances to show that the Court had jurisdiction as the goods supplied were given in reduction of the debt and were according to precedents, equivalent to payment. Mr Howorth read decisions showing that a claim reduced by set-off, to the amount within the jurisdiction of the Court was not by that means capable of being decided by the Court if the account had not been previously adjusted. Although credit was given for goods said to be “in part payment,” the mere form of words did not alter the character of the transaction. His Worship said his opinion was that there should have been an agreement between the parties as to the treatment of the goods supplied, whether they were given in payment or not. Mr Barton applied for leave to amend the account by the insertion of the words, “By goods delivered and received in part payment ” in order that in case of appeal to Court, the matter might be placed beyond a doubt. His Worship decided to hear the plaintiff’s case, in order to ascertain whether the goods were payments or a set-off. The plaintiff in 1808 cleared four and a-lialf acres of laud for the dfendant at L 4 an acre, and afterwards three and a-half acres at L 5 an acre, being more difficult work. He also cleared a piece of land for which he was to have L 22, and for clearing and filling five acres he was to have L 9 lUs an acre. He cleared the whole but a few big logs, and was about to clear them when Mr Christie ordered him to leave the place and do no more work. It would require the work of two men four days to complete the work. He could only get seven shilliugs a day. He was to have Lit) I Os for another piece of ground, and 2s 9d a chain for clearing 2! chains of a roadway. He also did several days’ labor at various descriptions of work—altogether LI2O I2s fid. In payment lie agreed with Mr Christie to take money or goods—of the latter at Dunedin prices". Christie paid L 37 in cash, and he estimated that he had goods which brought the payment up to LIOO. He could not produce particulais, as the book in which he had entered them was sent up to Mr Christie to rectify the accounts, and he

refused to let plaintiff’ have it back again. Plaintiff occupied a piece of land, measuring thirty acres, belonging to the defendant, which he was to have for fourteen years—for the first year at no rent, in consideration of his clearing it, and afterwards at a rental of 10s an acre. One of the sons of the defendant pulled down the fence, and turned some cattle in, aud a few days afterwards two of them repeated it. He received a notice on the Ist April from the defendant to leave his holding, on the alleged ground that he was harboring suspicious characters, and threatening legal proceedings. On the ground he had a ton of hay, and a quantity of potatoes, parsnips, turnips, carrots, aud oats. The hay was eaten and trampled underfoot, aud • he crops destroyed. The damage amounted t<> L2O. In crossexamination, the plaintiff said that Mr Christie had charged him with goods he never had. He never but once found fault with the prices, when Mr Christie charged him 4s for a pound of tea. Evidence was given to show that the work was properly done. Mr Howorth repeated his objection, and his Worship said, from the evidence, it appeared that the goods received were in payment for the labor done. For the defence, Christie admitted that the prices were agreed for labor with the exception of one item, but denied the quantities charged, aud alleged the work was not co npletad. The plaintiff had received L 49 7s Id in cash, and L 134 9s 7d altogether in money aud goods. He admitted that his cattle were on plaintiff’s ground, but the damage was very ttifiing. Mr Barton, in cross-examination, questioned the defendant respecting the manner and time of making up his book of account between himself aud the plaintiff, and some discrepanies between it and the ac* count rendered. Evidence was given to show that there was only a very small area of land under crop, aud that the value would not exceed 50s. A witness named Jackson valued the crop at 40s. His Worship said with regard to the first point, the best evidence was that of the defendant, which charged the plaintiff L 134 9s 7d. As the plaintiff had lost his book he could not do otherwise than accept the evidence. With regard to the second, he should award L 5 10s. Mr Barton asked to be allowed to take a nonsuit. Mr Howorth objected, after a judgement was given ; the non-suit was refused.