RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2345, 7 October 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tups Day. (Before A. 0. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil. .Cases. McDonald v. M‘Leod. A claim for 15s for one day’s hire of a horse and buggy. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount. Reeves v. Zierk. —Since the commencement of the action, part of the amount had been paid. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the balance, L 23 4s 2d. Hutchison v. Solomon. L 25. A claim for money alleged to bo paid under distraint widen v,,a. nob legally duo to tlic defendant. Mr Turton tor i-ca plaintiff, Mr Hodgkins for tlic defendant. Mr J. W. Hutchison said he was lessee of section 3, N.E, Valley, belonging to Mr Solomon. A second lease was taken of another piece of ground by Mr Willoughby in 'November, 1808, on bis behalf without his knowledge or sanction. Air Solomon asked for a lease bn£ the matter stood over till the return of Mr S. S, from Melbourne the following January, vb,o concurred with him that it was not needed, but qltimati ly it was agreed the ground should be taken for njic year from the date of agreement, and Mr Solomoii to avoid disputes agreed to the arrangement;. in June last Air Solomon called and asked for a cheque for 1,25 for wnt without specifying any particulars. A receipt was given at the time. About sit or sev«u weeks afterwards, another application for L‘io wue made. On which search was made for the receipt, and ho became aware that the money had been paid in error, further payment was refused, and in consequence Mr Sa’omor. levied on the leased ground under duress, and toe money wan paid. In cross-examination, the plaintiff said that Mr Willoughby’s arrangement was ratified by him to tlic extent of one year. Ho still held the land at Hie Brickworks, under lease. He had mortgaged it in January or February last. The works were still earn d on, pipes wore made, and bricks worn occasionally made. S. Hutchison confirmed the statement made respecting the arrangement with the defendant for taking

the ground by Mr Willoughby. Four or five i weeks before the expiration of the end of the term, for which (he ground was taken, everything was removed from it. It had not been used since. If building material had been placed there, it was not by his direction, nor with his knowledge. No bricks had been burnton the ground since December, 1808. Charles White was present at the interview between Captain Hutchison, S. S. H utchison, and the defendant. He confirmed the statements of Capt. Hutchison whica were confirmed by the evidence of Charles White and Benj imin Willoughby, the latter of whom stated he agreed to take the land at Ls(l per annum for one year, or if the clay was allowed to be taken out in a lease fox seven years. This condition was refused, and the lease was not given. For the defence. J. Solomon, the owner of the land, and Joseph Solomon, his son, stated the ngrecni' nb was for seven years, and the plaintiff still had possession. George Bn files gave evidence to show that Messrs Hutchison still exercised ownership. His Worship considered the evidence clearly established that the tenancy was for one year only, and that the money was paid in mistake. Judgment for the plaintiff, L 25, with costs. Douglass v. M ‘indoe. —LSI 5s fid. Mr Harris for the plaintiff; Mr Barton for the defendant. The defendant pleaded never indebted, and a set-off. Mr Harris objected to the set off, as the summons was only served yesterday. Mr Barton agreed to the set-off being withdrawn. The plaintiff said that he had known the defe daut ten or eleven years. In Juno last defendant said lie was go ; ng to Wellington, but bad not received his money from the Provincial Government, and was not in funds. Plaintiff said “Well, Mae, I will not see you beat, I will give you a cheque. ” The cheque was objected to by the clerk at the Bank, on account of the writing not being like Done lass's. Mr Fulton became guarantee to the Bank for the amount. Since Mr M’Tndoc returned, several applications had been made, and although he had promised to pay the money, he had never done so. In I cross-examination by Mr Barton, the plaintiff said the cheque was not given in payment of [debts owing to the defendant, to whom he never owed anything in his life. (Two 1.0. D.’s were produced, one of L'2, and one of L 5.) The plaintiff denied that the money was for cash lent to him, or on his own account. David Calder recollected the cheque being given, and that on Mr Fulton’s explanation it was paid. He did not rc'-olleer. telling M Modoc that Douglass had received money from home. Nor did he remember agreeing with M‘lndoc to send in the account. James Mffndoc in ISfiO and ISfil was carrying on business, and had transactions both with Mr Macandrcw and Mr Douglas. Two purchases] of grass seed, amounting to Lo.’l 14s were made by Douglass Douglass borrowed on three different occasions Lfi, L‘2 and L 5, He heard from (.’aider that Douglass had got money from Home, and it was agreed that both should send iu their account and try to get some money. But going into town one mornin'', Douglass was waiting for him, and told him he had received some thousands fx-om Home, and would give him a cheque for thirty pouxxds, and the remainder should he paid onAeccipt of the next remittance. In reply to Mr Harris the defendant said 1 the statement that lie required money to go to Wellington was a pure invention—no such thing was ever mentioned. On one occasion he had purchased ejover seed from L'auterhurv, which lip paid for, because he was bound to pay the money. His Worship said that hr was of opinion that the two 1.0. U.’s gave considerable color to the statement of "the defendant, and taken in con- : nection with the evidence of the hooks, judgment was givexx for the defendant, with costs.