RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2215, 13 June 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A C. Strode, Esq., R. M. ; Rees, Esq., J.R) Civil Cases. Morriscm v. .pougUss,- -L7 Hs 6d. Mr Howorth for the plaintiff llis Worship commented on the vague maimer in which the particulars were stated, and said that unless plaints were more clearly slated, he should in future direct them not to he taken, as it was Impossible to discover whether or not there was cause of action. The defendant acknowledged the claim, hut pleaded subsequent insolvency and the statute of limitations, but not having given notice of these pleas in accoidance with the Act, they were not allowed. In evidence, the plaintiff stated that L2 Is <KI was for interest which he had paid Messrs Driver, Maolean, and Co., in consequence of having purchased a ton of bone dust, which he purposed as a set off against his old account, but which was due to. that linn on account of delay in pay jug fpr fho bone-dust, thy money for which was due to thin}. The question was mixed tip with Some political arrqu-c-

ments, the particulars of which were not disclosed. Judgment for plaintiff, L 7 Us 6d. Caleb Moore v. T. G. Carr.-Cost of replacing window, through carelessly placing an advertising board, Ll3 10s. Mr Anderson for the defence. The plaintiff stated that on Sunday week, in consequence of what his night watchman told him, he found a window 7x4 broken, and from what ho was told he charged the defendant with the cost of repairing. The plaintiff, in crossexamination by Mr Anderson, said he was not the licensed occupant of the Empire Hotel at the time tiic window was broken, but ho was the lessee. He had suggested to Mr Swan, Dr Carr’s agent, that the matter should be referred to arbitration, but that gentleman denied his liability. The window was cracked from one side to the other. Mr Anderson objected to the account, on the ground that no particulars wore given as to the amount claimed for repair of the window. Evidence was given as to the manner in which the advertising bill was hung. In cross-examination, the night watchman said he saw the board strike tba window. He was 4 feet 8 inches high, and the piece of wood struck the window about two feet above his head. Mr Hobbs, foreman to Mr Fish, proved that a pane of glass seven feet one way was broken. The glass and repainting would be Ll4 or Lls. Mr Anderson moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that there was no proof that the ■ window, was broken by the board, and that it would bo proved that the board could not have broken the window, as by blowing the lower part so high it would have blown off the nail, and that the board having been securely fastened the defendant is not liable. The Magistrate decided there was a case to answer. For the defence, Mr Swan, agent for Dr Carr, was called, who deposed to the board being frpnly fixed—the piece of board, at the bottom'being about nine inches or a foot of the ground, and the breakage being eight;feet.above the ground. The bill had been hung for a fortnight prior to the breakage, and did no damage, but bad been removed to substitute a bill for Mrs Steele’s benefit. On the part of Dr Carr ho would have consented to arbitration, but the"which•w-'glass was reniovecl. —The Bench had no-doubt of the defendant’s liability. The plaintiff contributed in no degree to the breakage, and there could be no doubt it was caused by the high winds lately prevailing. Judgment for plaintiff, LI 3 lOs and costs.