RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2223, 22 June 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq , R.M.) Gme Cases. Turton v. Godso.—Lll 13s, a claim for professional charges. Mr Ward ,for the defence. It was stated for the defendant that three accounts were rendered, each differing from the other, and that certain deeds were withheld which he had applied for. Judgment for the plaintiff, subject totaxation. Maiming v. Anderson. —A claim for L 8 4s 4d, balance of account for machinery supplied. Mr Barton, for the plaintiff; Mr Stewart for the defendant. For the defence the picas were not indebted, and ft set-off. The set-off claimed for was on account of strainers supplied, which the plaintiff explained were sent to him for sale Evidence was given to prove that the goods a number of brasses and rollers were supplied to the defendant by Messrs Wilson and Co., charged to the plaintiff and paid for by him. The defendant affirmed that he bought a horse power for a machine at LIS, which he was charged L2O for, and that he paid fo it at the time, and that he was charged with a greater number of cast-iron rollers and brasses than he received. Mr Barton contended that the plaintiff being only the guarantor to Wilson and Co., and having paid the bjll he was not bound to prove delivery, The defendant admitted he had given an LOU for L 3, which he said he thought was an acknowledgment for money paid. He had never seen an 10U» and did not know its nature. The principal difference was as ■to the price agreed upon for the horac-powpr. His Worship considered the evidence with regard to the horse-power was in favor of the defendant. He should allow the claim for tho brasses, and as for the wire strainers he considered the evidence of Mr Wilson’s foreman sufficient, and would allow 30s each. This would leave a balance in favor of the defendant of 8s 2d. Judgment for the defendant.

Trehencr and Clegg v. Matthew Stewart. —A claim for L43s 6d for work done. Judgment by default for the plaintiff. L. Levy v. J. Winter, mapager of the United Carrying Company. —A claim for Ll4 5s 6d for alleged detention" of goods, whereby the sip 3 of certain goods was lost, and damages sustained. Mr' Ward for the plaintiff ; Mr Barton for the defence. The plamtiff said lip recoiyed an order for goods from Mr M ‘Ray of Switzer's, and he packed and sent them down to the warehouse of the Carrying Company to he forwarded, and obtained a receipt for them. Four mouths afterwards, not jt.caijng apythipg qi tpc goods op enquiry at the warehouse he was told they had been forgotten and were still in the warehouse. He considered that he had lost M'Kay as a customer, and probably the sale of sevopl other parcels of gpqds. The gCjqds ■w ere his property until he sent them down to the warehouse to be forwarded. The warehouseman, Depqnsey, srjd thefg bad been no opportunity of forwarding the goods until June 3rd, when they were sent on. Mr Reid, of t]>o flrpr of Rojd apd Herbert jsfffd ho believed po drays had latterly been going that road. The plaintiff was nonsuited.