RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2227, 27 June 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tins Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. W. T, Dyer (Tokomairiro) v. Sibhjfld—A claim of about LlO, for expenses alleged to have been incurred through the plaintiff being compelled to come down to town to defend au action in tbe Resident Magistrate’s Court, which was withdrawn by the plaintiff without a hearing. Mr Barton for the defendant, Mr Howorth for the plaintiff. Mr Barton argued that the case never having come before the Court the Magistrate had no power to award expenses under the Act, and that even If it were decided that the Court had power, no more than the expenses allowed by law could be claimed. The evidence shewed that the plaintiff came down in a baggy, and had a horse at livery four days. His Worship took time to consider his verdict.

Sibbald, trustee in M.Liskey’s trust estate v. Dyer.—Lß Os 6d, for boots, &c. f supplied. Mi* Barton for the plaintiff, Mr Ho worth for the defendant. For the defeu :e, not indebted, and a set off were pleaded. From the evidence it appeared that there had been same large money tran-actious between the parties, and It was pleaded four pounds of the amount claimed was part of the money agreed to be advanced. Objection was also male that proof had not been given of transfer of debts by the trustee, E. 0, Quick, to the plaintiff, and there was no evidence of complete execution of the deed of arrangement. On these grounds Mr Howorth claimed a nonsuit. In cross-examination by Mr Barton, Mr Dyer said the set off pleaded was part of the expenses of a morgage to advance money not executed by M'Kliskey, from which he (Dyer) derived no advantage, as he had to obtain the money he wanted from another party, and had to pay expences in that case. M‘Kliskey said he gave no instructions for preparation of the deed. His Worship considered the evidence showed the pjopey advanced was part of an unliquidated set-off, and therefore coidd not be allowed, and that evidence as to who gave instructions for preparation of the mortgage deed was contradictory. Judgmsut for the plaintiff, LQ Os 6d. Cole v, Fuller and Murray L 24 for wages. Mr Howorth for the plaintiff, and Mr Bartou for the defendant. The plaintiff claimed wages for eight weeks, at L 3 per week. From the evidence of the plaintiff it appeared thot he had made an arrangement with Fuller to do work necessary at the keresone store at L 3 per week, two months notice to be given on either side in case of a desire to put an end to the agreement. On going down to the store, Murray told him he was not required, and put him out with* out violence. He had attended since that time, and fulfilled all the orders he received. The defendant Fuller said he appointed the plaintiff as storeman in order that the interests of the partners might be protected as the partnership was in course of being wound up. The storeman previously engaged refused to obey hia orders, although Murray wished to retain his services at 35s a week. In reply to Mr Barton, Fuller said that an action was now pending in the Supreme Court between him and M u rr? : y. swer to Mr Howorth he said he became propa .tor of the kerosene store in 18G8. Mr Barton argued that Fuller was hot agent of his partner Murray, and had no right to appoint Cole when he had expressed his disapprobation of the appointment, and therefore Cole's claim was against Fuller solely ) and further that the partnership having terminated prior to the agreement 'with Colg, Fuller had no authority to make the appointment. Judgment for plaintiffi L 24. Several cases of no interest were decided,