RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2257, 1 August 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq , R.M.) Civil Casks. Cole v. Murray and Fuller.—A claim for wages amounting to three pounds. Mr Hodgkin for the plaintiff. Mr Macassey for the defendant. This claim was founded on an agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant Fuller, who engaged the plaintiff as storeman at the Kerosene Bond, To this agreement the defendant Murray would not consent. The agreement was for three months, the salary for which bad been paid. Two mouths’ notice was required.to be given qu either side if there was a desire to put an end to the engagement. Mr Douglass, receiver at the Kerosene Bond, had given plaintiff notice to leave on the 22nd July, but Mr Fuller requested him to remain. Mr Macassey objected to the reception of the notice in evidence, on tbo ground that Mr Douglass bad no authority to bind the partners in the action, having only been appointed by the Supremo Court to be receiver. Mr Hodgkins replied. His Worship after reading the order, considered that the receiver had no such power as he had claimed to exercise in giving such notice to the plaintiff. He was only authorised to collect the sums due. For the defence, Mr Macassey held that the agreement entered into between Fuller and the plaintiff, was completed at the end of three months, and secondly, that 'an agreement entered into by Fuller, in opposition to Murray’s wish, was not binding upon the latter. The defend*

aut, Murray, said in his evidence, that he was not consulted by Fuller or any other person on the re appo ntment of Cole after the expiration of the three months. Mr Mauassey drew attention to the fact that three days wages sued for, bad been satisfied in the previous action. His Worship reserved judgment. Brook v. John Miller, L2 10s 4d.—Mr for the defendant. The defendant paid 16s into Court, being a dividend of 6s 6d in the pound under a deed of arrangement. The plaintiff said he considered that not having been a consenting party to the arrangement, although he know he could not claim the full amount of the debt, as the dividend was not tendered him, he was entitled to claim expenses. Mr Macassey showed that a tender was not necessary under the Act, that application should have been made to the trustee in the estate, and that the proceedings were vexatious. He also pointed out that were such a system of suing for small debts in full, sanctioned by the Court, it would open a wide door to fraud. His Worship said the .only question was who should pay the costs, aid he saw no reason why the rule of the Court that the plaintiff should pay the costs should be departed from. Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount paid into Court. The costs amounted to LI ss. Brook v. Eeid, a claim of LI 14s, the price of four cases of pears, at 8s 6d each. The defendant demurred, on the ground that they were bought at 7s each; LI 8s was paid into Court. It appeared from the evidence that the pears were bought subject to the price obtained at auction for fruit of similar quality. Judgment for the plaintiff of LI 1 Is, each party paying half costs. Monies v. Spears, Ll6—Mr Stewart for the ' plaintiff. This was a claim for balance of account for money lent. The defendant admitted owing Lslos. The accounts were of a complicated character, the evidence was merely of personal reliability, and some family differences were entered into. His ■ Worship considered the weight of evidence in favor of the defendant. Judgment for the plaintiff, L 5 10s and costs.