RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2219, 17 June 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C, Strode, Esq., L.M.) Ox vie Cases. Young y. Macklin—L9s 5s 6d, a claim for money alleged to be due. Mr Catomore for the plaintiff, Mr Ward for the defence. The claim was founded upon certain transactions in trade connected with a brow.ery and the sale of it. The plaintiff was non-suited. L. Wilson and Co. v. Steinhoff, Marshall, and Lcid, trustees in (he estate of Thomas Armstrong Junes—LlD 4s. Mr Turton for the plaintiffs, Mr Catomore for the defendants. , The claim was for the amount deducted by the trustees for valuation of furniture in the Hotel, sold by the trustees under a bill °of sale, and alleged to be for the benefit pf (he plaintiffs. In evidence it was stated that the plaintiffs wore in possession of the property under a bill of sale when Mr Jones executed a deed of arrangement, by which the defendants became trustees in the estate, and the plaintiffs withdrew from possession on the understanding that their interests were tq be protected. His Worship said according to tho evidence ho failed to see what benefit could accrue to the plaintiffs from the valuation, who bad not taken any part in the matter, nor relinquished possession. Judgment for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed. Hill v. Crawford.—Ll6. Mr Stewart for the defendant. This was an action to recover the value of a mare. Tho defendant, -who is a carrier on the road, had agreed to bring a mare from Cromwell or to take hpj* at LI6. Ho obtained the mare in accordance with an prder given, but never delivered her to the p’aindff, and said she was lost. The plaintiff’ three mouths ago, offered to accept LlO for the marc on condition {Jof there being “no more bother about it,” but the money had nevey beer, paid. For the defence it was stated that on application for the mare, one was delivered to the defendant on which he never put bridle or halter. It travelled six qr seven uplea with the defendant's horses, but ou camping for the night, the horse went away and was never recovered. His Worship could not doubt tho defendant had been guilty of gross negligence in not taking means to secure the mare. The delivery was no doubt complete. Judgment for the plaintiff, Id! and costs; I the defendant to have the marc J recovered, •TUDOMc.NT. Smytines v, W f qtt.—Hjs Wqrship gave judgment as follows In this inse I anj of opinion that the terms of the 309 th section

of the Bankruptcy Act, 1867, supplies in fte. language a complete justification to, tlse Sheriff of the course pursued by did I consider it necessary to refer tojcasek in support of the conclusion at which £ have arrived, the case of Lloyd v. Harrison, ,34 L. J.Q.B. 07, which has since been affirmed on appeal to the Exchequer Chamber, 35 L.J. Q. B. 153, appears to me to be a direct authority in favor of the defendant. Judgment for the defendant with costs.