RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2355, 19 October 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuts Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. B'rch v. Wilkinson —LIO. This was a chum for valuing the property in the Alhambra Hotel, of which the defendant is lessee. From the evidence it appeared that the defendant took the hotel of James Richmond, on whose behalf the valuation was made by Mr Wilson, of the firm of Wilson and Birch. It was stated that Mr Wilson charged Richmond nothing for his trouble, and for the defence it was urged that it was understood that the p'aintiff was to value for Wilkinson on similar terms. There was no such agreement proved. For the plaintiff, F. Bussell, an expert, was examined, who said that the usual charges for valuing was five per cent, on the amount of the prope?-ty. He also said in conversation with Mr Birch, in the Otago Hotel, he understood him to say no charge would be made, although it was not expressly stated so. J. C. Richmond, in his evidence said that the valuation free of charge was understood to he for the sake of securing the main portion of the beer trade of the Alhambra, hut ( ii the question being put by Mr Birch, he said that expectation was based on the condition of Messrs Wilson and Birch consenting to endorse the defendant’s bills. His Worship said that fivm the evidence he must conclude that it was an ordinary business transaction. The defendant must be bourn! by his own agreement, which he had before him. He ha t made a tender of L 5, showing he believed something due to the plaintiff, and there appeared to be no grounds whatever for supposing there was any agreement with Wilkinson to value the property for nothing. He considered the charge a low one. Judgment for the plaintiffs, LIO and costs. Elliot v. Spiers. —L2 Is 3J, for balance of account. The defendant pleaded a judgment in the Magistrate’s Court, in which a verdict was recorded in a forum - action for the defendant. His Worship explained the nature of the judgment, to show that the verdict was not a final settlement. The defendant admitted the claim, and jndgiqent was given by consent for the amount claimed.