RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2383, 21 November 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

This Day.

(Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) RKHEAHINO. John Gray v. John Taylor.—T.9 12s 2d. The rehearing was granted on the application of the defendant, on the ground of fresh evidence not previously obtainable and surprise. Mr Harris for the plaintiff, Mr Mansford for the defendant. The case was simply that the plaintiff received an order from the defendant to supply goods to one Flyn. to whose debit the goods were entered, but in this special case the defendant was stated to have made himself responsible by a letter in which he stated the money should be paid in a mouth, and by promising to see the money paid. The defendant pleaded non-liability. In cross-examination by Mr Mansford, the plaintiff said that the goods were supplied in 1868, and no written application was made for the money until September, 1870 ; but that in the interim the defendant had repeatedly promised to see it paid. Flyn went through the Insolvent Court. For the defence, J. Flyn said that about two years ago the defendant was working for wages for him, and at that time sent an order for the goods, for which payment was claimed. The plaintiff made several applications to him for the money. The Utter written by Taylor he considered merely an introduction to the plaintiff, and not os guarantee. Defendant said, at the time the goods were ordered he was not in partnership with Flyn, and received no benefit from the goods. He did not know that Flyn had ever had any transactions with Gray when he wrote the words “ the money should be paid as before.” Judgment for the defendant. Civil Cases. Croshaw v. S. Parkham, L 7 for wheelbarrows supplied and repaired. Judgment forplaiutiff, by default. T. Brown v. T, Montagu, L 4 Os 7d for bread and groceries supplied. The defendant admitted the amount for goods, but pleaded payment of LI, for which credit had not been given. The plaintiff said the payments ..were only 2s 6d each, and a cord of wood for which 15s was charged, aud credit was given for these amounts. The case was adjourned to Monday.

Boyle v. Cross, L 3 17s for balance of wages. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount.

Christie v. Hooper, LI 2s for assessment of sections of land. The defendant pleaded liability only to the amount of lis—the amount of assessment for the last year, and release from liability under a Judge’s order. No special notice having been given, the defendant admitted the debt. Juflgmeut for the plaintiff. ->* Bradbury v. Pritchard, L 3 7s 4d for breaking road metal. The defendant pleaded not indebted. It was partly a question of measurement, the defendant stating that the plaintiff had accepted the amount as payment in full for part of the work done, and that for L2 ;5s of the amount an order in favour of plaintiff given by the Manager, Mr Mackenzie, had been paid. On being again put iuto the box, the plaintiff said he had never received the order, nor received payment for it. Judgment for the plaintiff, L 3 7s 4d, and costa. EXTENDED JURISDICTION. Geary v. Stevenson (adjourned case), LIOO. Mr Barton, instructed by Messrs Howorth and Hodgkins for the plaintiff. Mr Macassey for the defendant. This was an action to recover damages sustained through the non-conveyance of certain lands at Port Chalmers, obtained by the defendant under a selection land order issued by the New Zealand Company, and sold by him to David .Miller, through whom it was transferred to one Geary, whose representative was the plaintiff iu the action. The claim also included damages sustained through wrongfully obtaining a Crowu Grant for the land. Mr Barton stated the case. The following evidence was given by J. H. Harris, solicitor :—Previous to 1853 he was acting for Mr Garrick, a solicitor of the Supreme Court. He remembered a transaction, in which Mr Garrick was employed by D, Miller of Port Chalmers in the year 1849. He recollected having instructions to convey part of section 43 to a widow, Mrs Johnston, but prior to that thore was a conveyance from Stevenson to Miller. He believed the draft was by Mr Garrick, and engrossed by himself. Two other documents conveying the land from Miller to Carey and Miller to Johnston were produced. The deed conveying the land from Thomson to Miller he believed went to the oflic« of T. B. Gillies iu 1859, and he thought himsplf justified in saying they afterwards went to Mr Cook’s office. He had the selection order in his possession, to be held until a Crown Grant was obtained. He was satisfied that Mr Stevenson’s interest in the land was duly conveyed by deed. His impression was that the deed of conveyance was executed before Stevenson left the country. David Miller iu 1849 exchanged another section at Port Chalmers for section 43 with the defendant Stevenson, He gave a 10-acre section in Waikari next to his own, and took possession of section 43 in 1851 or 1852, which he sold to David Carey and Mrs Johnston. Stevenson was present when instructions were given to prepare the convey, ances. Both purchasers occupied the land, and built upon it. Both the witness and Stevenson left the country, and Stevenson on his return was told that some papers connected with the transaction were missing. In reply, he said if he could find them he would rive them up, but his chest had been broken open during his absence, and everything taken away. Carey’s portion was transferred to Geary. An action of ejectment was brought against Geary and ilrs Johston, and he (the witness) was required to give a good title to the land. He recollected that tiie land selection order was endoraed by Stevenson, and told Geary so, or at least that a document had been signed by him transferring the property to him (Miller). He paid fifty or fifty-seven pounds throurii Mr Howorth after the action of ejectrnent. 6 Mr Mercer identified his signature to several documents. (Left sitting)