RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2197, 23 May 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cares. A. Fraser v. John Mackenzie. —Mr Howortli for the plaintiff; Mr Harris for the defendant. The claim was for LI7 os, being Llo 15s for half the cost of a boundary fence, and LI 10s for surveying the line. For the plaintiff it was stated that the arrangement was made with the trustee in Chalmor’s estate, Mr Morrison, to whom the proper notice was given of intention to fence, and who agreed to pay half the cost. The fence was put up in 18(37. For the defence it was contended that no notice in accordance with the provisions of the then existing ordinance had been given, and that the fence was not on the true boundary line. Mr lloworth applied for a n m-suit, as he considered evidence coul£ be brought forward jf proper notice being given. The defendant was nonsuited. Fraser v. Ellis —LI 1 9s. Mr Howorth for the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded indebted only LI 18s. There appeared to have bom no regular settlement of accounts between the parties, and after long investigation judgment was given for the plaintiff for the amount claimed.

Dey v. Alexander Shand.—Lls 11s, for the amount of a promissory note and interest. Mr Howorth for the plaintiff. Judgment hy default for the plaintiff. Jackson v. Hannigan.—A claim for Ll7, the value of a gold lever watch, locket, and chain obtained without the plaintiff’s knowledge. Mr Barton for the defence. According to the statement of the plaintiff, he agreed to transfer a pawn-ticket to defendant for L 5, and an agreement wAs made that L2 should be paid down, and L 3 was to be paid in a fortnight. He received the L2, and on going to try to redeem the ticket he found that the defendant had released the On crotg-exp f nun{it‘on by Ur. Baftqn, the plaintiff admitted that he was “on the spree ” with Mr Samuel Symms, to whom he gave LI. For the defence, it was averred that the de'endant bought the ticket of the plaintiff for L2, on which L 5 had been obtained. The watch and locket were produced, which Mr Barton described as a “Loudon runner”—a watch of pinchbeck, not worth won? than L 3 when new; and

that had plaintiff seen the watch, he would not have advanced L2 on it. His Worship considered the evidence in favor of the defendant. Judgment for the defendant. There were two or three more cases that were allowed to go by default. In all, thirtyfour cases were set down for hearing, of which the greater part were either withdrawn or settled out of Court. The Court then adjourned to Wednesday.