RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2269, 15 August 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. Trustees in the estate of Levy v. Hopcraft—Lß Os 6d, a claim for goods supp’ied. Hie defendant stated he had paid 1.5 at different times. A receipt was produced for a sum not credited, and the trustees withdrew their claim to another L2, asserted to have been previously paid. Judgment for the plaintiff L2 19a 6d. W. and J. Jack v. W. Statham—L2 16s 6d. Judgment by default for plaintiff for the amount. M. Fleming v. James Curie—Ll 5s lOd. The defendant paid LI into Court and stated that he had returned the bags which were charged ss. The defendant said he had tendered the money to plaintiff’s son, who refused, to receive it. Tire plaintiff agreed to. accept the amount, and the case was dismissed. George Thomson v. Daniel Forrest.—l6s 6d, for balance of account. The defendant 2>leaded not indebted. The plaintiff said he agreed to work sixteen and a ha’f days for the defendant at “eight bob a day.” His Worship said tho Court did not recognise such a coin, as it was not one of the current coins of the realm._ The plaintiff, after sonic hes : tation, explained that a “bob” meant a shilling. The defendant stated he had engaged the plaintiff at 7s a day. That afferhe started he asked Bs, and was told he should have lb if he would work for it; but instead of working well he only did about two hours’ labor in two days. The plaintiff was cross-questioned by the defendant to elicit that the agreement was for 7s a day and “his tucker.” He, however, did not succeed. There was no witness, and judgment was given for the defendant, Jameson v*. M‘Kenzie. —-A claim for LIS 7s 6d, for balance of work done. For the defence, Mr Turton. The. liability of the defendant was denied. The plaintiff said he agreed with the defendant to break stones at 2s 6d a yyd,and spread tluiflfornd a yard. Helielleved that Mr Williams was a partner with Mr M‘Kenzi& In reply to Mr Turton. the plaintiff said he was not aware that Mr MTCeuzie was merely acting as agent for Mr Pritchard and others. Air Smythe, road inspector, was called, who said that the contractors were Messrs Pritchnrd, Carson, and Dowse ; Mr M'Meijzie was overseer. Mr Turton said the plaintiff had been overhasty, that Pritchard and partners were prepared to settle the account on its being proved correct. Judgment for the defendant. Bleckley v. D. Brunton. —LlB 15s, for goods sold and delivered. Judgment by default for the plaintiff. Lindsay v. Gollard. —LI 12s 6d. The difference between the parties was one day’s wage. The plaintiff is a journeyman baker. The rate of wages was admitted. From the evidence of the defendant, it appeared that the plaintiff had left his servise through drunkenness. Judgment for the defendant; the set-off exceeding the principal matter.