RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2309, 30 September 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tins Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., 8.M.) Civil Cases. M'Gnire v. Ward.—This case has been twice before the Court, and related to the sum of L 3 given to a person named Kingcombo to pay to Mrs M'Guire. Mr Stuart fqr the plaintiff. His Worship considered the weight of evidence was in favor of the plaintiff having received the money, Judg: ment for the defendant. Shcrwin v. AIVKny. — L 4 ss. 'The defendant applied for an adjournment on account of not having received any notice of action until yesterday at 1.30, Adjourned to Monday. P. Barker v. E Pritchard,—LG for a racing saddle. Mr Barker said the saddle was borrowed in order to ride a race, and it was returned with the tree broken. Pritchard on account of its being broken, agreed to pay LG for it; the saddle was taken away, and the plaintiff had received nothing for it. In answer to the defendant the plaintiff said the saddle when returned was nearly used up. A witness proved that the plaintiff asked L2 as damage done to the saddle, but that the defendant agreed to take it at LG. For the defence it was stated that about January defendant borrowed a light racing saddle, Air Barker saying that if it were not returned or if it were broken he should pay L 7 10s for it. On receiving it back from Cromwell, he cleaned it, and sent it back in better condition than it was received, and as for the tree being split, the damage was done before it was borrowed of the plaintiff. Mr Barker complained of the damage done when Air Corson, who was present, agreed to take the saddle, saying it was cheap enough, he would take it and run it off on the beach,

and he (the defendant) never saw it afterwards. The saddle had never been in his possession. In reply to the plaintiff the defendant denied (tiering to “take it out in horse-shoeing.” A witness named Mercer, a coachman in the employ of the defendant, had received and returned the saddle to Mr Barker. It was in as good condition when returned as when received. George Dowse, saddler, said he examined the saddle yesterday. It was not broken. It might have been repaired, but he thought that there was a slight split in the saddle tree. His Worship said, .according to the plaint, it was a matter of sale and delivery. He would have preferred having Cors m’s evidence. The case was adjourned to Monday. JUDGMENT. M‘Lean and Spcddiug v. M'Nickle.—His Worship gave judgment in this case. He said he had considered the two points raised by the counsel for the defence the first being that there was no covenant in the deed to pay the composition ; and, secondly, that no evidence had been adduced at the hearing that the action in the Supremo (Joint for tile recovery of the identical goods had been discontinued. On the first point he had read the covenant in the deed. The deed bound those creditors who signed the deed, hut on those who did not sign it there was nothing binding, as contended by Mr Stewart. As to the second point there was no evidence. It was clear that by the Supreme Court rules there was only one way to discontinue an action, and ho should be travelling out of hip course if, knowing there was an action pending for the recovery of those identical goods, he were to interfere in the smallest degree. He must therefore conclude that the action bad not been discontinued, Mr Catomore, on behalf of the plaintiffs, applied for a nonsuit. The plaintiffs were nonsuited accordingly.