RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2259, 3 August 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tins Day,

(Before A. C. Strode, Esq., E.M.) Civil Cases. Hcaly v. Noakes. -i 16 13s 3d for goods supplied. Judgment by default for the plaintiff. ■ ' Walker v. J. Wilson.—L2o for goods supplied. Judgment by default for the plaintiff. Ha tie v. R. Graham.—Lß, lls, balance of account. The account included the price of a horse, which the plaintiff alleged was to be LIS, but winch the defendant said was to be Ll2 10s. , The plaintiff said he agreed to give the : defendant twelve months credit, and in evidence it appeared that in about the twelve months the horse died. Judgment for plaintiff, L 7 19s. D. H. Carey v, Wablquist.'—Ll6 12s 16d, the amount of an 10U. The claim was admitted, and judgment was given by consent. Ten pounds to be paid in a fortnight, aud the remainder in five weeks.

Howard y. Fanny Sutherland.—A claim for cab fare LI. Judgment by default for plaintiff for the amount. Clark and Thomson v. Fargie. Mr Harris for the defendant. The plaintiffs claimed L 7 10s. The sum of five pounds was disputed, and the remainder M r as paid into Court. The plaintiff said that he and his partner made an arrangement to have a niuefnch party wall built separating their premises from the defendant’s, who went to them and asked if they had any objection to make it a fourteen-inch wall, This was agreed to on condition of Mr Fargie paying the extra price, In reply to Mr'c!arris the : plaintiff said that before the defendant went to them a contract was made to put up new premises of which that wall formed a part, and that he told the defendant if he could agree with the bricklayer for a fourteen-inch wall he should prefer it. H. Spiers, bricklayer, said he. arranged with Mr, Fargie to make the party wall a 14-inch wall, for which he was to pay L 25. Mr Fargie’s premises were longer and higher than Clark and Thomson’s. He built the wall and got paid for it. .Clark and Thomson considered they were only entitled to pay for 7.1 inches of the wall, instead of 0 inches as contracted for, and he estimated for Clark and Thomson the value of the difference, which was L 5. He never heard any agreement made. The plaintiff Thomson said that he had applied several times for the amount, and that the defendant had offered on one occasion a pound to settle the matter. W. Miller, bricklayer, said that the particular wall divided—onehalf on the defendant’s ground, and one-half on the plaintiff’s. Supposing the wall to be half on each ground, the plaintiffs would gain two niches by the arrangement. For the defence, it was urged that the plaintiffs had no claim, as before the work was com-menced-it was arranged between plaintiffs and defendant, in order to make the wall a party wall under the Building Ordinance, and to make it cheaper for all, that, if defendant would pay the extra cost, the wall should be made 14 inches wide instead of 9 inches. This was stated in evidence by John Fargie. A party wall 4 feet longer, 14 inches thick, and superior in every respect to the wall in question, was put up between his premises and Mr Hannagan’s, and it only cost LSO. During the progress of the work the plaintiff Clark asked for the L 5 claimed. Mr Saunders, architect, was employed by the defendant to prepare plans for the alterations in his premises. Before the wall was built he suggested the a r ingemeut respecting the party waff, which was carried out. Hewas present when the arrangement between plaintiffs and defendant was made, and was under the impression that it was agreed that the defendant should pay the difference of cost between the 9-iuch and the 14-inch wall. Mr Hannagen, in reference to the alteration, heard Mr Clark tell Mr Fargie that he should be satisfied with any arrangement the defendant, made with the contractor. The value of the work was also stated by Mr Stokes, contractor. His Worship considered from the evidence that the agreement was that nothing more than the extra cost of the wall was to he paid by the defendant. Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount" paid into Court, the plaintiff to pay costs. Porsaith and Son (Coal Point) v. Louis Munson, L2t> 10s, for breach of contract and damage..—Mr Barton for the plaintiffs, and Mr Harris who appeared for the defendant, took exception to the agreement, that the stamp was not obliterated according -to the Act, as the name and date were required to be obliterated by. two parties to the agreement. Mr Barton said that the initials F,

aud S, being on the stamp, the Act was £g|||PPs9ai(h as they were two parties to His Worship ruled that Foraaith>aud Son were only one party. The plaintiffs wePe nou-suitod without costs.