RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2281, 29 August 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. Hanslow and Sampson v. John Perry— LI 3 12s, for work done. Judgment by default for plaintiff with costs. Barnard Isaac v. F. Clifton —Lfi 0s fid. Judgment by default for plaintiff for the amount. Same v. W. Greenwood —L2 Is fid. The dependant admitted the correctness of the account, and said that he was not prepared to pay it at once. He complained that the account had been rendered three days after the death of his wife, and that ho was summoned almost immediately afterwards. Mr Isaac said the account was promised to be paid .at once, but that on presentation of it, defendant refused to pay it, and that it was therefore ncce-.sary to take steps to recover it. Judgment for the plaintiff by consent. M'Guirc, Executrix of the late James M‘Quire v. Ward was postponed by consent to this day fortnight. George S. Brodrick v. John Campbell.— Ll4 Ds fid for balance of account for coals. The original account was L3l 12s fid, of which LIT 3s, including bags returned, had been received. Judgment by default for plaintiff. Charles Sampson v. John Phillips.—Lo 2s sd. The defendant admitted the debt, but pleaded inability to make immediate payment having been out of employment. Judgment by consent for plaintiff. Josh. Spence v. John Russell. —L 7 18s 7d for meat supplied. Judgment by default for plaintiff for the amount. Same v. E. Morris. —Ll3 4s 7d. Judgment by default for the plaintiff, with Mary M‘Quire, Executrix in the estate of the late J. M‘Quire v. Dawbarn.— L 8 Ss fid. The defendant applied for a postponement in order to examine the account. It appeared that tiie summons had been served on Thursday, and Ids Worship did not consider the reasons alleged sufficient to justify acceding to the request. The defendant pleaded not indebted. From the evidence it appeared that the defendant boarded at the Imperial Hotel during the life time of the late J. M'Guirc, and that the debt claimed was contracted then. Ho stated that he had made a special agreement for board which was overcharged 10s a week, and that he had repaid a sum of money alleged to be borrowed. As the plaintiff had no personal knowledge of these transactions and could not contradict them, judgment was given for the plaintiff for LI 12s fid.